Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Brighton, East Barnet Valley, Keighley, Keswick, Lichfield and Rotherham,"presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

UNPAID CONTRIBUTIONS.

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if all the contributions due from members of the League of Nations have been received at Geneva; and, if not, will he state the amount of any outstandings; what nations are responsible for any unpaid balance of expenditure; what percentage of the total amount is paid by Great Britain; and is the total amount of our assessment paid to date?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The position in regard to unpaid contributions to the funds of the League of Nations on 31st August, 1925, the date of the last report by the Secretary-General to the Assembly of the League, was as follows:



Gold francs.


1920
29,947,47


1921
425,351,93


1922
405,746,00


Adjusted arrears account.
287,598,33


1923
2,553,363,29


1924
2,069,089,89


Total
5,771,096,91


The countries responsible for these unpaid contributions were: Bolivia, China, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Rumania, Salvador. South Africa was at the date in question responsible for a postponed payment which has now been paid. The percentage of the total amount of the League budget payable by Great Britain for 1926 is 11.2 per cent. The sum due from Great Britain is paid in quarterly instalments, which have been paid up to date.

Colonel DAY: What is being done in regard to these unpaid contributions? Is there any hope of collection?

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Is it our business to collect them for the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not the business of this Government to collect these arrears. I believe reminders are sent out not infrequently by the Secretariat to the countries concerned.

Commander BELLAIRS: Do the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman include the cost of the International Labour Office?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there anything in the Constitution by which States that are in arrears for a certain period do not take their seats?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is; but the Constitution is open to the hon. and gallant Member to see.

DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will be the members and the expert advisers of the British delegation to the forthcoming Conference on Armaments at Geneva: who will be the representatives of the Dominions; and whether a joint programme of policy has been drawn up with the Dominion representatives?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been asked and has agreed to serve as the British representative on the preparatory Committee on Disarmament, to which I
assume the hon. and gallant Member is referring. He will be assisted by representatives of the Foreign Office, Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry. In accordance with the decision of the Council, the committee will be composed of representatives of States members of that body and of certain other States invited ad hoc; the latter do not include any British Dominion. As regards the third part, the Dominion Governments have, as usual, been kept informed of developments. Special steps were also taken with the object of associating them with the work of the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence appointed to advise on all questions connected with the meeting of the preparatory committee.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the expert advisers who will go? I do not press for it now.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not like to undertake to do that without consultation. I do not think it is usual to give the list of experts who accompany Cabinet representatives. I do not think it would be desirable in the public interest.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter? I do not want to press him now. I presume there is no secrecy about it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There cannot be any secrecy. The question is whether we should attach responsibility to individuals of that kind who are sent to assist Cabinet Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (ESTABLISHMENT).

Colonel DAY: 4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men during 1924 and 1925, respectively, were placed on the establishment of the Royal Dockyards after they had reached the specified age limit under the authority of Clause 7 of the Order in Council, dated 10th January, 1910, relating to the Home Civil Service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The
numbers of workmen placed on the establishment of the Royal Dockyards and other Admiralty Civil Establishments after reaching the specified age limit, in the years 1924 and 1925, respectively, including yard craftsmen (to whom the Order in Council of the 10th January, 1910, is not applicable) are as follow:

1924
…
…
…
…
3


1925
…
…
…
…
20

LIEUT.-COMMANDERS (PROMOTION).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many lieut.-commanders, formerly mates, have reached the zone of promotion for commander during the last 12 months; if any, how many have been promoted; and how many of these gentlemen will reach the promotion zone during the next two years?

Mr. DAVIDSON: None of these officers has yet reached the zone of promotion; 32 will enter it during the next two years, assuming that the lower limit of seniority remains unchanged.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does promotion in this case entirely depend upon seniority?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Will the rate of promotion increase or decrease?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE REGISTERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of persons at present registered as unemployed; whether he has any estimate of the unemployed not on the register; and whether he has any estimate of the number of persons consistently working short time?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): At 5th April the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,049,800, including 238,600 who were temporarily stopped from the service of
their employers. The latter figure includes those working short time so far as they are registered. I am unable to give any estimate of the number of persons unemployed or on short time, and not on the registers.

Commander BELLAIRS: Do not these figures include many persons who would not have been regarded as unemployed in former days, such as merchant seamen waiting for the next voyage?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, from that point of view it includes a certain number.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister doing anything outstanding in order to minimise the amount of unemployment?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed at the present time and the number for the same period last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 5th April the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,049,800 as compared with 1,166,353 at 6th April, 1925.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: How does that figure compare with after Easter last year, instead of exactly a year ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot tell the hon. Member that from memory. The point of interest in regard to Easter this year is that, as might be expected, there was an increase in the weekly number of 36,000, because of Easter, consisting of 56,000 who stood off, clearly on account of the holiday, while, on the other hand, there was a decrease of 20,000 in those permanently unemployed.

Mr. PALING: Will the Minister tell us how much of the decrease is due to people being thrown on to the Poor Law?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HANNON): 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the statistics recently published by his Department showing the approximate number of persons who would appear on the un-
employment returns if the present restrictions in regard to payment of unemployment insurance benefit were removed, he will consider the desirability of publishing similar information every six months in order to allay suspicion in regard to the accuracy of the unemployment figures published meekly?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Under existing arrangements, the material from which these statistics were compiled will continue to be available. I will consider in due course whether it is desirable to issue a further memorandum similar to that referred to in the question.

RELIEF WORKS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men at present employed on the various relief works subsidised by the Unemployment Grants Committee and the number similarly employed a year ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 27th February, the latest date for which figures are available, 33,799 men were employed on relief schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee, as compared with 42,151 at 28th February, 1925.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the largely reduced numbers employed on unemployment relief work, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Unemployment Grants Committee that they should consider more sympathetically applications for assistance from towns where the unemployment is greatest?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They already have instructions and their ideas as to the degree of unemployment, and the conditions upon which they may consider applications, and I can see no reason far asking them to vary that.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that, if applications were considered more sympathetically, many more thousands of unemployed could be employed on these schemes?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a matter entirely for argument, and hardly capable of being dealt with within the compass of question and answer. On the whole, my opinion is that the number of
unemployed would not be diminished, but would probably be increased, by diverting more to unemployment grants funds that would otherwise go into normal channels of trade.

Mr. PALING: Has it not been more difficult to get these grants during the last five years, and is it not a fact that local authorities are complaining of the difficulty of getting their applications accepted?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now argue the matter.

TYLDESLEY EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.

Mr. TINKER: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has received a communication from the Tyldesley District Council in regard to his intention to remove the Employment Exchange to Atherton; and will he give consideration to the application made for a sub-office at Tyldesley, as, unless this is granted, it will mean considerable expense for the unemployed people of Mossley Common, Boothstown, and Astley who at present register at Tyldesley?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been in communication with the Tyldesley Urban District Council and have undertaken that the claims of Tyldesley and the outlying districts to separate facilities will be considered in the light of the conditions that obtain when the Exchange is moved from Tyldesley to Atherton.

Mr. GREENALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation representative of these outlying districts before he finally decides? I think that is very necessary.

Mr. TINKER: The constituencies which are affected by this proposal desire to meet the Minister of Labour through their Parliamentary 'representatives before he comes to a final decision.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot answer off hand, but if the hon. Members will get in touch with me or with the Parliamentary Secretary we can discuss the matter and find out if any advantage is to he gained by a further consultation.

DOMESTIC TRAINING.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HANNON): 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women who have passed through the Government's domestic training course since March, 1925; what percentage of these women have on the completion of their course been placed in situations, and what percentage are at present registered as unemployed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply for my right hon. Friend. Between 31st March, 1925, and 31st March, 1926, 5,947 women completed courses in home training centres conducted by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment. Complete information as to their subsequent employment is not available, but not less than 62 per cent. are known to have obtained situations. With regard to the last part of the question, information is not available.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Department in a position to state what percentage of the unemployed women are engaged in skilled industrial occupation, and therefore are not suitable for training as domestic servants?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Colonel DAY: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour, the number of disabled ex-service men who were engaged on telephone and other duties in his Department who have been discharged during the 12 months ending 28th February; and whether girls have been substituted in their places?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of disabled ex-service men, engaged primarily on telephone duties, who were discharged during the period in question was eight. Three of these were discharged in consequence of the closure of the Government instructional factories at which they were employed, while the remaining five were displaced by blind ex-service men or by other disabled men with superior claims to retention. In no instance was the man discharged replaced by a girl.

Mr. PENNY: Are steps taken by the Minister to endeavour to secure employment for the men when they are discharged?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes.

KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.

Captain FAIRFAX: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour if there is any substantial change in the figures of firms on the King's National Roll, and of disabled ex-service men now employed, and if he will give the latest available figures?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There has been no substantial change during the past 12 months in the figures relating to firms on the King's National Roll. The latest figures available relate to the position on 1st March, 1926, when approximately 28,000 firms were on the Roll, employing about 370,000 disabled ex-service men.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: May I ask whether every borough council is on the King's Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have the list., and can send on the information to the hon. Member, but I cannot answer the question now. There are one or two borough councils which are not on the King's Roll.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the Minister give the names of the borough councils which are not on the King's Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot. from memory. There are a thousand or so public authorities concerned, and I do not carry in my head the names of those not on the Roll.

Mr. LANSBURY: Instead of worrying private individuals, and in order to do justice to these men, the Government should withdraw their Economy Bill.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a list of the borough councils and local authorities which are not on the King's Roll?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question down.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider that suggestion.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (for Mr. W. THORNE): 19.
asked the Minister of Health if he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham (Plaistow)? [Return showing the number of men who have served in the Army, Navy, or Air Force, in receipt of Poor Law Relief in, England and Wales in the week ending the 27th day of February, 1926.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that the value of the return would be such as to justify the considerable amount of labour and expense that would be involved.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the Department aware that all boards of guardians have this information, and are only too willing to supply it to the Ministry if they are asked? Is it not possible to get it, therefore?

Sir K. WOOD: That is not the advice given to my Department.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that his Department is hopelessly ignorant of the work of boards of guardians?

Sir C. RAWSON: On a point of Order. As this question has now been asked arid answered, can we know exactly what it means?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will see.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS (PERMITS OF EXEMPTION).

Mr. KELLY: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of permits of exemption that have been granted by trade boards or the administrative committees on trade boards; the number of such permits which have been varied without the consent of the board or the administrative committee concerned; and what action, if any, has been taken by him as a result of such variations?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are 2,189 current permits of exemption granted by trade boards. The conditions specified in the permits can be varied
only by the trade boards concerned. From time to time cases come to light in which the employer concerned has not observed the conditions thus prescribed, and appropriate action is then taken by the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUXILIARY AIR FORCE.

Mr. THURTLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Territorial Air Squadrons are intended for service overseas?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): No, Sir. A member of the Auxiliary Air Force can be sent on a flight starting and ending at a home base, but otherwise he cannot be sent, out of this country unless he volunteers in writing.

Mr. THURTLE: Are we to understand from that reply that the Home Defence bombing squadrons are intended for service at home only?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member will see from the answer I have given that I have explained the position.

Mr. THURTLE: Does it mean that the Home Defence bombing squadron may be sent over to Europe and then comes back to its home station?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, it does.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right lion. Gentleman satisfied with the result of his tour last autumn, when he tried to increase the recruiting for the Territorial Air squadrons?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question. The hon. and gallant Member must put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR FORCES (MILITARY AND CIVIL).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consider the advisability of publishing a Return of the Air Forces of all Nations on the lines of the publication entitled Fleets (the British Empire and Foreign Countries) [Cmd. 2590], with a view to showing the real strengths of the Air Forces of the world, and particularly the numbers of up-to-date machines which are in existence?

Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware there are insufficient official sources from which detailed information relating to air forces comparable to that contained in the Command Paper relating to fleets could be compiled. The statistics which are available are included in the Armaments Year Book issued by the League of Nations, of which my hon. Friend is no doubt aware.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of publishing a return of the civil air force, showing how we stand in relation to the other nations of Europe?

Sir S. HOARE: I shall be prepared to consider that question, but the same difficulties will arise as in the case of military machines.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would not that be giving information to the enemy?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not the case that the German Government do publish this information?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; the German Government cannot publish information with reference to military machines which the German Government do not possess.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to interfere with the internal affairs of Germany?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Does the same answer apply to civil machines?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I suppose the German Government have a list of military machines, but the question relates to civil machines. If the hon. Member wants to ask a question about civil machines, he should put it down.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are not the German civil machines capable of being turned into military machines?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RHINE ARMY (COST OF REMOVAL).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of moving the British Army of Occupation from Cologne to Wiesbaden?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): On the information at present available, the cost of moving the British Army of
Occupation from Cologne to Wiesbaden is estimated at, approximately, £160,000. This figure represents the cost of evacuating buildings at Cologne, of transporting the troops to Wiesbaden, and of the initial works services required for their reception and accommodation.

Sir F. WISE: Is this paid by the German Republic?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There is a refund of part on the Reparation Account.

Sir F. WISE: Why is it not paid by the German Republic?

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are any troops left in this area?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are troops in Wiesbaden, but not in Cologne.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the number of the troops in Wiesbaden?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Yes, after notice. It is, approximately, 9,000.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Is there any estimate of the cost of the troops remaining there?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: The figure I have given is the approximate cost of moving.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Would it cost very much more to bring that army back to Britain?

CONTROLLER OF COST ACCOUNTS.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS (for Mr. RAMSDEN): 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, although the Corps of Military Accountants has been reduced from 100 officers and 700 men to 25 officers and 140 men, the services of the controller of cost accounting are still being retained at a salary of £1,200 a year, plus bonus; and whether he will inquire into the necessity for retaining this Civil Service official in view of the fact that the remaining 25 officers, who have now been transferred to the Royal Army Pay Corps for accounting duties, are all qualified chartered or incorporated accountants, and as such fully capable of dealing with all accounting matters?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The holder of the post of Controller of Cost Accounts has not only great knowledge of the methods and possibilities of cost accounting, but he has also exceptionally wide experience of the system and requirements of Government accounts generally. He is usefully employed in his present position.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is the appointment of this official permanent?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; I think that it is not.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is he pensionable?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT EXHIBITION OF 1851 (SURPLUS FUNDS).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if the surplus funds from the Great Exhibition of 1851 have been exhausted; and whether, if any balance still remains, the amount of the surplus could be applied to make good the Wembley losses and thus relieve the guarantors of some portion of their liability?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Command Paper 2172 of 1924, which will give full information as regards the first part of his question. It would be impossible to adopt the suggestion in the last part of his question.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I should like to know whether the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been drawn to this sum of money?

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (ADMINISTRATION).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the Departments which administer the Government of Aden, indicating how their functions in each case operate?

The SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): The administration of Aden is conducted by the Political Resident. So far as con-
cerns the local government of the Aden Settlement, he acts under the supervision of the Government of India and the India Office; so far as concerns political relations with neighbouring chiefs, etc., he is under the control of the Colonial Office. The whole question of the future control of Aden is at present under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 23.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will now publish the Report of the Departmental Committee on the question of grants for necessitous areas and say what action the Government propose to take?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall.

Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of yesterday's reply, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Report will be considered in time for action to be taken and incorporated in the Budget?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question until the Report has been considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Captain FAIRFAX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any communication to make on the situation in China; and what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure the protection of the lives and property of British subjects and to assist them in the peaceful pursuit of their legitimate undertakings?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No statement on the general position in China can usefully be made at this juncture, since it is not yet possible to foresee the result of the present contest, for Peking. For the time being there is no reason to anticipate danger to the lives, or property, of British subjects. Except in the Province of Kwang Tung, where an anti-British boycott is still maintained, legitimate undertakings can be carried on, although the prevailing state of civil war
is a serious handicap to British as to all other trade.

Captain FAIRFAX: Is it understood that it is not necessary to take any steps, and that there is not any danger to life and property?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain whether my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to Peking or to China generally.

Captain FAIRFAX: To China generally.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In regard to the state of affairs at Peking, representations were made to the Chinese Government by the Diplomatic Corps on the 6th of this month, I think, in consequence of the fighting in that area. Speaking generally, if there be any sign of danger, of course, our Consular Agents warn British subjects to leave the districts in which they would be in danger.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Is bombing still going on in Peking?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say whether it is going on at this moment; it was a day or two ago.

Mr. PENNY: Does my right hon. Friend think the situation is improving generally out there?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a slow-moving country.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say what constitutes the Chinese Government at the present time?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What are the British naval forces, if any, on this coast?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say without notice. The question should be addressed to the Admiralty.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (WELSH LANGUAGE).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state when the Committee, now sitting at the Board of Education to report upon the teaching of the Welsh language, will issue its Report; and whether such Report will be accompanied by a verbatim Report of its proceedings?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I understand that the Committee hope to be able to present their Report before the end of the present year. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS REGISTRATION (INDIANS).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by six office-bearers of the Glasgow Indian Union to the effect that a number of British subjects, born in India and resident in Glasgow, many of whom were employed in Britain during the War, have been registered as alien seamen by order of the Home Office, and, if so, what action he will take to prevent similar occurrences in future?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Office. The Home Secretary has received from my right hon. Friend a copy of the statement in question, and as the result of inquiry I understand that the persons to whom it refers had no documentary proof of their claims to British nationality when called upon to register. The registration of six of them was subsequently cancelled on their producing valid British passports, and it will be cancelled in the case of any others who produce evidence of a similar character.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker, for my guidance? The hon. Member has put a question regarding certain people resident in Glasgow, and the Home Office has answered it. I have always understood that in connection with Home Office matters the Secretary for Scotland controlled that Department in Scotland. In connection with naturalisation matters it is becoming increasingly difficult for Scottish Members to know to whom to address their inquiries. They are bandied about between the Home Office and the Scottish Office. Does the Secretary for Scotland control Home Office matters in Scotland?

Captain HACKING: The Home Office is responsible for all aliens, whether in Scotland or in this country.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Two years ago, when the last Conservative Government was in power, there was the case of the Irish deportations. Then the Home Secretary did not apply for the orders, but the Secretary for Scotland did.

HON. MEMBERS: They were not aliens.

Mr. BUCHANAN: They were being treated as aliens.

Mr. SPEAKER: That point cannot be raised now.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Under-Secretary for the Home Office pursue his inquiries into this matter and allow all the people concerned to be informed that if they can prove that they are British citizens these restrictions will be withdrawn, passport or no passport?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it the case that Lascar seamen have now to produce passports and to show their British nationality?

Captain HACKING: I must have notice of that question. With regard to the first question, all these people know exactly what they have to do in order to avoid registration as aliens. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh !"] They will know, after having read the answer to this question.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men are British subjects; and will he take some steps to notify the people in Glasgow and these people concerned, that British subjects need not come under these alien restrictions?

Captain HACKING: It is precisely for the reason I have indicated—that we do not know whether they are British subjects or not—that we must satisfy ourselves on the point. We must be satisfied that they are British subjects before we cease to compel them to register as aliens.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN PUBLIC SERVICES (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for India whether it is the policy of the Government of India, in making appointments
to the higher posts in the public services, to give preference to members of the Legislative Assembly and Councils who vote on the side of the Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): No, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: No; we must not read the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly? May I read them, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, we must not discuss the debates of the Indian Legislative Assembly.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the Noble Lord aware that the Governor of Bombay wrote a letter to certain persons informing them that it was the policy of the Department to give rewards in the shape of offices only to those who voted consistently with the Government?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman will realise, in the first place, that his question has reference to the Government of India, and he is now asking a supplementary question about some action taken by the Governor of Bombay. That is an entirely different office which has responsibility for an entirely different Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants information on that subject, I must ask him to put down a question. In fairness to Sir Leslie Wilson, I ought to state that the letter from which the hon. Gentleman is quoting was quoted elsewhere in India and the quotation is given in India was incomplete. The full letter was not quoted. It was not a letter from Sir Leslie himself, but from his private secretary to a correspondent in which he dealt, inter alia, with the position of the members for Sind in the Bombay Legislative Council and appointments to the Public Service in that province.

Mr. LANSBURY: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must have questions before me where they deal with other Legislatures.

Mr. LANSBURY: The only point is that the Noble Lord has challenged the accuracy of the statement which I made, and I only want to ask him whether he is aware that, in that letter, the number of times certain persons voted with the Government and other persons voted
against the Government are given in very great detail?

Mr. MACOUISTEN: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must see questions of this sort, in order to ensure that they are in order, when they deal with matters concerning the administration of other Legislatures.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST DOCUMENTS SEIZED.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to be able to publish the documents recently seized at Communist headquarters?

Captain HACKING: A selection of documents has now been made, and the Home Secretary hopes to be in a position at an early date to make a definite statement as to publication.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Who is to have the publishing rights of these documents, and who is to reap the profits?

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL FARMS, SCOTLAND (SUB- DIVISION).

Mr. JOHNSTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has any information he can give the House regarding land raids which are reported as taking place in South Harris, and whether 30 landless men, several of whom are ex-service men, have seized and are now cultivating land in the Borve Deer Forest; and what steps he is taking to assure the people of Scotland that the promise made in 1914 of the provision of land for cultivation by smallholders shall be implemented by the Government without further unreasonable delay?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have information that interdict proceedings are being taken in respect of alleged illegal occupancy of a farm in South Harris, and that a seizure of land has occurred in Borve Deer Forest. As regards the farm to which I have referred, I understand that it is in size below the limit for compulsory taking under the Small Landholders Act, 1911. I would take this opportunity of expressing my opinion that the sub-division of small farms in the Islands is a policy not in the true interests of the community,
and is one which I am not disposed to follow. The process of land settlement will proceed in suitable areas as the means at my disposal will permit.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the time of his predecessor—now Lord Alness—an agreement was come to between the Scottish Office and the late Lord Leverhulme whereby compulsory acquisition of land for small holdings would be suspended for 10 years on condition that the late Lord Leverhulme was going to provide employment for large numbers of people in the Lewis; and, seeing that this employment has now stopped, is the right hon. Gentleman not going to see that provision of land is made for men who were definitely promised land when they went forth to fight in 1914?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that the cessation of the late Lord Leverhulme's works has caused a definite demand for land. The Board of Agriculture are taking steps and have taken steps to settle men upon the land since that has occurred.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In South Harris?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the Secretary for Scotland aware that there is something seriously wrong here? Here are men who are anxious to get work and who have gone on to the land to work the land and not to eat it or steal it? [HON. MEMBERS:"Order"]

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for debating the question.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that, according to the returns, the number of small holdings has decreased in Scotland; and will the right hon. Gentle-

man not take steps to see that those small holdings which have been given up, or from which the tenants have gone away, should be put in possession of others who want small holdings?

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions should be put on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ruled that further questions on this subject should be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the inequalities of the present electoral system, and move a Resolution.

CO-PARTNERSHIP SCHEMES.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 12th May, I shall call attention to co-partnership schemes, and move a Resolution.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT.

Mr. RUSSELL: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the use of home-grown wheat, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 128.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[3.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briggs, J. Harold
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Briscoe, Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chapman, Sir S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General I.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astor, Viscountess
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Clayton. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barnett, Major sir Richard
Bullock, Captain M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butler. Sir Geoffrey
Couper, J. B.


Bethel, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Bowyer, Capt. G E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Brass, Captain W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Huntingfield, Lord
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Ropner, Major L.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sandon, Lord


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Loder, J. de V.
Savery, S. S.


Ellis, R. G.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Elveden, Viscount
Lougher, L.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sovrerby)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L. R.
Staney, Major P. Kenyon


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ganzoni, Sir John,
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Malone, Major P, B.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gretton, Colonel John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B, M,
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gunston, Captain O. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had)
Murchison, C. K.
Waddington, R.


Hammersley, S. S.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hartington, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilcher, G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wise, Sir Fredric


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Preston, William
Womersley, W. J.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Raine, W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper



Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remnant, Sir James
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major Hennessy.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



Hume, Sir G. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Duncan, C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Barnes, A.
Fenby, T. D.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Barr, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bromfield, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bromley, J.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kelly. W. T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenall, T.
Kennedy, T.


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kenyon, Barnet


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kirkwood, D.


Clowes, S.
Groves, T.
Lansbury, George


Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, T. W.
Lawson, John James


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lee, F.


Connolly, M.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Lowth, T.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lunn, William


Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mackinder, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hardie, George D.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Davison, J. E. (Smithwick)
Harris, Percy A.
March, S.


Day, Colonel Harry
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morris, R. H.


Dennison, R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Duckworth, John
Hirst, G. H.
Murnin, H.




Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Varley, Frank B.


Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry
Viant, S. P.


Paling, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallhead, Richard C.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stamford, T. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Potts, John S.
Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, W.


Purcell, A. A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wiggins, William Martin


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sullivan, Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Scurr, John
Taylor, R. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sexton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Windsor, Walter


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, E.
Wright, W.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Townend, A. E.



Smillie, Robert
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Warne and Mr. T. Henderson.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOWMENT FUND BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL,

"to enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in Blackpool, Swansea, and Doncaster for the public service; and for other purposes,"presented by Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON; supported by Viscount

Rural District.
Classification Grants.
Unemployment Grants.
Other Grants.
Total.



£
£
£
£


Ashby-de-la-Zouch
…
…
—
—
73
73


Barrow-upon. Soar
…
…
462
—
1,156
1,618


Belvoir
…
…
—
—
272
272


Billesdon
…
…
71
—
2,714
2,785


Blaby
…
…
105
—
1,418
1,523


Castle Donington
…
…
—
—
26
26


Hallaton
…
…
—
—
199
199


Hinckley
…
…
—
474
—
474


Loughborough
…
…
—
—
134
134


Lutterworth
…
…
—
—
575
575


Market Bosworth
…
…
133
—
4,303
4,436


Market Harborough
…
…
—
232
1,880
2,112


Melton Mowbray
…
…
38
—
7,122
7,160


Total
…
…
809
706
19,872
21,387

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (HOSIERY TRADE).

Mr. EVERARD: asked the Prime Minister whether the decision of the Cabinet with regard to the safeguarding
Wolmer; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for reducing in respect of certain services the charges on public funds and for increasing, by means of the payment into the Exchequer of certain sums and otherwise, the funds available for meeting such charges, and to amend accordingly the Law relating to national health insurance and certain other matters and for purposes related or incidental thereto, it is expedient to amend Section fifty-nine of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, by repealing the words other than additional benefits ' in paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) thereof and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may he required for the purpose of defraying the proper proportion of the costs of any additional benefits to which men of the Forces may under the said Act become entitled out of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed."That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I, first of all, ask for your guidance. Mr. Speaker? The Resolution we are now to discuss was No. 1 on the Order Paper yesterday, and, after it, there was a second one, which was discussed in Committee of Ways and Means. The Chairman of Committees, very much, I think, for the convenience of the Committee, and, if I might say so, for his own convenience as well, decided that the two Resolutions should be debated together, the understanding being that after the Debate, ranging over both Resolutions, upon the first being put to the Committee there should be no separate debate on the second. As the two are rather difficult to keep separate, I think, in the Debate, and as it is very undesirable that in debating one, and straying on to the ground of the other, you should be continually compelled to call a Member to Order, may I suggest, and ask you to agree, if you will, to allow us, the same latitude under the same conditions as we were allowed yesterday, so that we can debate both Resolutions together, and then, when the time comes for a
division, the other be put without further debate?

Sir JOHN SIMON: May I say, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, that I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition. As far as we are concerned, we think that course would be convenient.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me a very reasonable request. The two Resolutions are so interlocked that it would be impossible to keep within the rules of Order between one and the other. Therefore, I accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MacDONALD: I listened with very strange feelings to the Debate that took place yesterday. As I sat in my place here and heard the Secretary of State for War and two of his colleagues—because there was a self-denying ordinance, apparently, imposed upon their followers opposite—explaining their views, I really wondered if I were attending a meeting of the Soviets in Moscow. The arguments were exactly the same as one would expect to hear there when they are confiscating private property. The point of view was precisely the same. The State is in need, and the State in need dominates everything else. In fact, there was a most significant smack of that old Prussian Professor Trietsche in the arguments which the Minister of War produced, and the effect is going to be the same—confiscation of private property by a Government who have got a majority in the House of Commons behind them. As I watched, and the minutes ran into the hours, and the gloom on the faces of hon. Members opposite got deeper and deeper, I was not at all surprised. The fact of the matter is that this country is in a peculiar position at the present time. It has got a Jacobin, who happens to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as he wants to balance his Budget next year, he is adopting the principles of the policy of Lenin. He has persuaded the Minister of Health to take the position of Zinovieff and he is asking the Secretary of State for War, who is doing his very best—and yesterday, I am bound to say, he did it with some success—to fill the shoes of Mr. Trotsky. He and his supporters did their best. I compliment him on it. I listened, I think, to all the speeches he
delivered yesterday, and he did his level best with the utmost limits of success to make the nationalisation of wealth fairly decent.
How did he try to do it? He said, first of all, they were dealing with the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund, which was different from the funds of approved societies. That is not true; that is not the case. The Navy, Army and Air Force Fund in its nature, in its features, in its origin, in its composition, in its structure, in its object is precisely the same as the ordinary approved society. There is no difference whatever. Originally, it was a tripartite fund. It was laid down quite specifically, when this fund was created, that it was to apply to the soldier and sailor—the airman was not in existence then—in exactly the same way that the approved society fund was to apply to the civilian. If there be any doubt about that, I think it can be removed by the statement made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said on the 7th November, 1911:
This is the plan. The soldier and the sailor will pay 1½d., instead of 2d.
The reason for that, however, is not that there is anything special, but there were certain benefits that were to be ensured if the 2d. were given as part of the soldier's and sailor's pay. There was no difference at all. It was that in the previous contract with the War Office and the Admiralty the soldier and the sailor enjoyed certain benefits for which the civilian had to ensure himself under the Bill as it stood—
The soldier and the sailor will pay 1½d. instead of 2d. The Admiralty and the War Office, who are in the position of employers, will also pay 1½d. or its equivalent. I will come to that point later on. Then, of course, the State will pay two-ninths of the benefits exactly as they do in the ease of any other insured person."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1911; cols. 1490–1, Vol. 30.]
That is the creation of the contract. There you have the three parties. There was no mixing up of the double State payment. It is important that the House should remember that. There was no question of the soldier paying so much and the State paying so much. There was no question of the sailor or the
soldier paying so much and the Admiralty or the War Office paying so much. No; the authors of the scheme drafted on to the soldier's and the sailor's case and their benefits precisely the same idea, and created precisely the same kind of fund as they were creating by the approved societies and the insured civilian, the soldier and sailor taking the position of the workman, the Admiralty and the War Office taking the position of the employer, and then those two, having paid their insured quota, the State, apart from the War Office and the Admiralty, as the third party in the contract, come in and pay to them its two-ninths. That is the position of the Fund. It is exactly in the same position as the ordinary civilian fund, and the Government cannot get out of it. It is perfectly true that in 1920 there was a certain change made in the way in which the payment was to be made, but that change was merely a change for convenience, and there was no change in the character of the Fund.
Let the House remember what has happened. The War Office and the Admiralty were readjusting the conditions of the men they employed, and in engaging them they said,"Instead of asking you to pay 1½d. as before we are going to improve your conditions to this extent amongst others."Other changes took place. They said to them."We are going to pay this 1½d. for you, and it is part and parcel of the inducement we give you to become a member of the Army or the Navy: but so far as the obligations are concerned the tripartite agreement remains precisely the same."It is precisely the same change which an employer would make who wished to contract with a building labourer who was working for another employer. He would say to him,"I will pay you exactly the same wages, but instead of deducting your health insurance from your wages I will provide the stamps myself. ' That is precisely the position of these men. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman tries first of all to justify his nationalisation of private property in the interests of the State, as he does in the two Resolutions now before the House, he does it by trying to give the House to understand that this is a special fund, whereas as a matter of fact
it is precisely the same as the accumulations of the ordinary approved societies.
There is one other matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. It is perfectly clear that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been afraid to do it he would have invaded the actual surpluses of the approved societies. Why is he invading this surplus? Why does he say to the Hearts of Oak Friendly Society or other societies,"This is the extent of my invasion and I am only going to stop paying according to my contract. If you have £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 in reserve I am not going to touch that actually, but my proposal is going to operate in the future, but I am now going to leave you exactly as you stand with regard to your pool."When the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with smaller societies, such as those connected with the soldiers and sailors and the members of the Air Force, he says,"I am not going to be content with that, but I am going to put my hand into your pool and take from it an accumulation of £1,100,000."
I have been trying to find out why that is being done. There is absolutely no ground whatever for it except the most miserable attempt to differentiate between this Fund and the funds of other approved societies, which cannot be substantiated by anyone. I ask hon. Members who are really interested in this subject to read the Debates in Volume XXX of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 1911, and they will find there exactly the same sort of societies with certain small modifications in detail which were necessary to make the scheme applicable to Army and Navy men; hut so far as the essential features are concerned, and so far as the idea of the tripartite partnership is concerned, the War Office was not to be the State and the Admiralty was not to be the State, but the War Office and the Admiralty were to be employers and the State came in above them as the third party to the contract. So far as the essential features are concerned, precisely the same conditions prevail, and so far as the application of any categories justify private property, those categories apply with precisely the same force and in the same way as they apply to the approved societies. I know the right hon. Gentleman has tried to prove otherwise, but he must fail in the opinion of anybody who has read the Debates to which I have
referred because there hon. Members will find the exact organisations of this society. Why are the Government doing this? I find a very interesting observation recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT in 1911 by a speaker who, I am sure, the House will not regard as a mean authority on insurance. I mean the present Secretary of State for War. He was putting in a plea that this Fund as originally devised should be devised with more generosity, and he said:
Before I do that I want to remind the Committee that there are many thousands of men serving in the Army and the Navy who, as they are under discipline, cannot agitate for themselves, and have not been able to take part in the deputations to and interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time.
The right hon. Gentleman has never given these men a chance of doing that. He has not yet even set up the Committee which he ought to have set up to consider this question.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The right hon. Gentleman was not present when I replied. I have already stated that the Committee was set up, and it is dealing with the question of benefits. The Committee has done everything for which it was set up.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. MacDONALD: I absolutely accept that statement. I heard the right hon. Gentleman speak once or twice but, apparently, I was out at that I time. I apologise. I believe others have something to say on that line, but, as far as I am concerned, there it ends. The comment that I was going to make will not be made. He goes on:
Neither have they been able to appear in the Lobby of the House of Commons or to approach Members of Parliament, for they have no organisation. It is true that one of the friendly societies in which Service men are enrolled has written to the right hon. Gentleman, but the majority of the Service men have had no spokesman at all in connection with this Clause. Therefore, it is all the more necessary"—
and this is the green part of that twig—
for the Committee to be, not only strictly fair, but even a little generous; and, if there is any question of doubt, it should be given on the side of the soldier or sailor, and not of the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1911; col. 1994, Vol. 30.]
There is his statement of 1911, and to-clay this is his generosity. In the first Resolution, he says:"We are going to extend the limit of benefits provided for in the existing law until they become the same benefits as civilians get under the ordinary approved society."That amounts to an average of £3,000 a year, and we may capitalise it at £60,000, or something like that. That is the feather which he puts in his cap, and I am quite willing to help him put it there. By the second Resolution, which you, Sir, will proceed to put as soon as we have divided on the first Resolution, he is taking £1,100,000, and he regards himself as being a generous man. Now we know what to expect from a Tory Government when it raids labour accumulations of property. If it leaves £60,000 in a fund while taking £1,100,000 away, then it is to be regarded as a generous Government so far as that fund is concerned. I am glad to say that I have different ideas of generosity from those which the right hon. Gentleman appears to possess. He tried to make another shift. He said:"I could have done this in another way. It was unnecessary for me to have raided the Fund. I could have left the money in the Fund and then I could have ceased to pay my contribution to it"—well, a rather dishonest expedient. Supposing he is right, what does it mean? It means that he is going to keep the soldier, and sailor and airman paying to the Fund while he himself does not pay to it at all. That is a very bright example of generosity on the part of the Government."I am in a position to throw off my responsibility. I believe that by the wording of a certain Section I can say that my responsibility begins and ends when the Fund is sound financially, and, as the Fund is sound financially, I can fulfil my 1911 contract by saying to the soldier and sailor and airman, ' You go on paying for your benefits, but, for myself, I shall pay nothing more until the £1,000,000 has been exhausted.'"That is a very nice Tory example of common Government honesty.
But he is not right. He is not contributing of his own free will. He is carrying out the statutory obligation. He has got a double obligation. He has got the obligation to pay his quota, and he has got the obligation to see that the Fund is solvent, and, when the Fund is solvent,
he is not in a position to throw off the responsibility imposed upon him by Section 57. Section 57 is an obligation independently of the fact whether the Fund is solvent or insolvent. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman himself did, but a good many Members in 1911 held the view that actuarily the Fund as it was then being created was unsound, because the Treasury at the time told us that they had no figures upon which they could calculate the risks of the Fund. The Fund was to be chargeable with what one may call without disrespect, the old crocks, the men whom no society with a free will to choose its members would accept, because the risks were so great that the insurance money did not really cover them, This Fund was going to be chargeable with the whole lot. All the rejects were to come on to it. I remember the Debates perfectly well, and it was pressed upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, again and again that a guarantee should be given to those men that the Fund would be a sound one. That was how this Section came to be put in at all. It was never put in to enable the Minister of War or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it was proved that the Fund was solvent, to say,"I have no obligation to you at all"
That was never the intention of the House of Commons, and nobody who was present during those Debates, as the right hon. Gentleman was, could for a moment get up in this year 1926 and say that it was. The intention was that it should be a supplementary obligation. If after the Secretary of State for War and the Admiralty had paid their contributions, after the contributions had been deducted from the men—1½d., as they then were—and after the State had given its two-ninths, the specially disabled men, the wasted physiques, found that they were drawing more from the Fund than was being poured into it, then, the Committee of 1911 said,"We want to be perfectly certain that justice is being done to those men, and we do not want the Government to be able to say, we have fulfilled our obligations when we have paid our quota '"The House of Commons, therefore, insisted on that further Section being put in, whereby, if the Fund was not
solvent, the Government would then come in and make it solvent. These words are now being twisted by a Government in need to-day. When Moscow comes into the blood, it is a very poisonous virus, I can assure you. When the State becomes so full of cupidity that whenever there are a few pounds lying about it must grab them, well the arguments in favour of the grabbing and as justifying the grabbing become very extreme, very absurd, and very dishonest. An argument that is put up to-day, that in 1911 or in 1924 this House, or a Committee of this House, ever meant that the Government when it found the Fund solvent should cease its payment is not an honest argument. What is more, I do not think it possible, supposing that were the decision to deal with it in that way without legislation. The Government would be bound to come here for legislation enabling them to shirk their obligations; otherwise, they would be bound to continue their quota. They are not paying of their own free will, but they are carrying out their obligations.
What is the conclusion? The conclusion, first of all, is that the money is not their's. The £1,100,000 that it is proposed to take by the second Resolution is not their's, and those who are going to support them are doing precisely the same kind of act as if they were assisting them to pass legislation empowering Parliament to take the surpluses at the banks of every hon. Member here. I can see the tremendous support which hon. Members to-day are going to give to the most extreme Communists in this country. Let them make no doubt about it; they are the Communists' greatest supporters. The Government have started it, the Government are pressing it, and the Government are going to put on their Whips to compel the majority of hon. Members this afternoon to say:"We are going to confiscate; we are going to lay our hands upon £1,100,000 which does not belong to us"—which does not belong to the State, except in precisely the same significance as you can say that every halfpenny which I own and every halfpenny which any other hon. Member owns belongs to the State. If you use language in that loose kind of way, then you are perfectly right in voting for this Resolution. [An HON. MEMBER"Who owns it?"] It
belongs to the society which was created under the Act. It belongs to the corporate society known, I think, as the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes —[Interruption].

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a fund.

Mr. MacDONALD: That is very significant. We are informed that it is a fund.—

Mr. BLUNDELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to whom he says this money does belong?

Mr. MacDONALD: I say it belongs to a fund—

Mr. BLUNDELL: The right hon. Gentleman said it belonged to a society.

Mr. MacDONALD: Or a society; but I am not using the words in that loose sort of way at all. It belongs to the body that is insured by the fund, and that pays its contributions to the fund. That body is a tripartite body. It is the men, it is the Admiralty and the War Office, and it is the State; and no change can take place in the partition of the fund without the consent of the three bodies. If this House imagines it can do that without the consent of the three bodies, then the argument I have put forward is perfectly sound, that this House, by the decision of a majority of its Members, can forfeit property that belongs to other people, either individually or corporately, and appropriate it to its own use. That is what the Government are doing. There is no talk about a fund. Is there any difference, for the purpose of confiscation, between, say, the Hearts of Oak Society and the Scottish Widows' Fund? I would like to know.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman addressing me?

Mr. MacDONALD: As a matter of fact, I am not addressing anybody.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I thought the right hon. Gentleman wanted an answer from me.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

Mr. MacDONALD: The technical knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman always stands him in good stead. Of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am
addressing you. I am putting a question, which I hope hon. Members will answer, as to whether there is any distinction between"society"and"fund"? If the new Tory doctrine is that you can confiscate funds but that you cannot confiscate the property of societies, I should be very much delighted to hear it, I should be very amused to hear it, I should be very edified to hear it. I will make hon. Members a present of the difference between"society"and"fund,"so far as the category of claims and justifications for the whole of their private property is concerned. The point with which I was dealing is that this money is not the Government's; this money is not the State's; this money is the property of a body which, as I have said, is tripartite in its character, and it ought not to be distributed or redistributed without the consent of the three parties in the ownership. Otherwise, would hon. Members be good enough not to talk about their being in favour of private property and being opposed to confiscation? There is another thing. This is a breach of contract. I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said that it was a breach of legal contract if, as I understood him—

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think so.

Mr. MacDONALD: I understood that my right hon. Friend said he was not sure that he would apply the term"contract."

Sir J. SIMON: Oh, no.

Mr. MacDONALD: In any event, the remark I was going to make was that, whether there be a legal contract or not, there is certainly a moral contract.

Sir J. SIMON: Parliament promised it.

Mr. MacDONALD: Parliament promised it; there is certainly a moral contract. Let us remember that when the Fund was set up, when those men were compelled to come in, there was no question of"The State is making it convenient for you at the moment, and, when we find what is going to happen, the State will then withdraw its support and take the Fund."Not at all. It was a business proposition. It was advanced as a business proposition, with actuarial reports and with a levy which was supposed to
cover risks. The curious thing is—and this is rather an important point—that the hon. Baronet who now sits for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) had a glimmering of something of this, but his suspicion of a Government never went beyond this, that he thought that, if there was to be a surplus in this Fund which would not be required to meet insurance liabilities, a Government might come along and say that those balances ought to be put in to make good the deficits of other insurance societies. The hon. Baronet put a question—it was rather a long question, but this is the essential point of it—asking whether balances which a man had not used would be absorbed by the State for the general purposes of the national scheme; and Mr. McKinnon Wood, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, replied:
In no case could the value of his contributions be absorbed in the manner suggested in the question, as the special fund will he earmarked to soldiers and sailors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1911; col. 1134, Vol. 30.]
Of course, it may be said that this is not going to relieve the national scheme. No, but is the position of the Government this, that when that answer was given the Government were quite convinced that no surplus from this special fund should go to the national scheme, hut that they did hold it in their minds that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in need, the surplus would go to relieve Super-tax payers? Is that the reply they are going to make? This House really ought to face its moral obligations, and I hope that, in matters like this, the House is going to observe the principle of continuity. The House in 1911 entered into a moral obligation to these men. We knew that the rates that were being paid, the rates that were being levied, were vague, but it was an agreement, and, if it has turned out that the surplus is too great, that the surplus is uneconomical, neither the soldiers, sailors and airmen, nor the War Office and the Admiralty, nor the State, as represented by the Government, have any business alone to settle how that money is going to be spent. This House to-day is going to be asked to say that it is not the business of the men, but that the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry merging themselves in the State—although they were specifically and quite properly separated from the
general State in the Bill of 1911—merging themselves in the State for the purpose of getting this swag, claim the right to say that, according to their wish and in accordance with their convenience, this balance is going to be appropriated, or, as I should say, misappropriated.
The third point is that it is a complete breach of a pledge given by the Government at the time, as is indicated by Mr. McKinnon Wood's answer which I have just quoted. That is our case against this proposal. As I have said, we have at last a Soviet Government sitting in front of us. I have had many a hearty laugh at. Tory Members, and especially Tory Ministers, perambulating the country, talking about how sacred they hold private property, and telling all the poor, dear, deluded citizens what an. awful lot of people we are—my amusement, however, at attacks upon ourselves has not come from that—what terrible people we are, how we have no notion of what a contract is, how we have no idea, of moral obligations, because we belong to the Labour party, because we call ourselves Socialists. Now, unless a miracle is going to happen, a majority of Tory Members, elected because they succeeded in rousing fears about our public probity, are going to march into the Lobby, are going to walk into the Lobby, are going to be shepherded into the Lobby, are going to flow into the Lobby—any word that hon. Members like, provided it puts them in the Lobby—and they are going to declare by their votes that, if the State requires private property, it is going to confiscate it, especially if it be the property of working men. They are going to declare that, if the State finds contracts inconvenient, it is going to break them without consulting even the people with whom it made those contracts. They are going to declare that if the State wishes, if a Parliament wishes, it can tear to pieces and regard as a mere scrap of paper a pledge which was more than an ordinary pledge, but was a solemn and official obligation, entered into by the representatives of the Government, and. therefore, of this House, at that Box, that the balances of this money were to be used in the interests of those who were insured under the Fund that was being created. That is a nice state of things to come to. I hope my hon. Friends who are rather inclined to Moscow will take
a warning—[AN HON. MEMBER:"Not a bit of it !"] I am very glad my hon. Friend took the opening I gave him—a warning—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I may remark that, if this discussion goes on, it will give the hon. Member on the back bench a right of reply.

Mr. MacDONALD: I beg pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You are quite right. This, to me at any rate, is going to establish a precedent, especially the second Resolution which you are going to put later on. To me it establishes a precedent which, quite honestly, I regard as an exceedingly serious precedent, and, therefore, I have addressed myself to the House as I have done. To me the Government are committing the very blackest of political and constitutional sins in doing what I have described this afternoon. I shall now leave it to the Tory party to decide within the next few hours whether it is in favour of the principles it professes in this country, or whether it is supporting the principles professed and practised at Moscow.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman says this is a Measure to confiscate private property, and in order to emphasise his argument he suggests that hon. Members on this side remind him of the Soviet. He has even gone so far as to compare individual Members with individual friends of his who are real members of that Government. He knows those gentlemen. I have not the same honour, and cannot really test whether the comparisons he makes are just, but I can say this, that there is nothing in this Measure which is in any sense at all a confiscation of property belonging to any individual whatever. In order to make his case of confiscation, the right hon. Gentleman had to endeavour to show that this £1,100,000 belonged to someone or another. He was asked whether is belonged to the serving men. He did not answer that, but he went through an elaborate argument to prove that the Navy, Army and Air Force Fund was exactly the same thing as an approved society. He said it did not differ in the least from an approved society. Ho argued from that that this was the money of an approved society, and that if the £1,100,000 were transferred to the Exchequer, it would be confiscating
a fund belonging to an approved society. It was the exact equivalent of that. That, as I understood it, was his argument. What is the Fund? It is not an approved society. It is not in the least like an approved society. An approved society is a corporation that is managed by its members. This Fund is not managed by the members, and no member has any right of membership at all.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Therefore you can rob it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hon. Members do not prove their case by constantly repeating words like"robbery"and"confiscation."If they really want to understand either the Government position or the case, they ought at least to listen while the case made by the right lion. Gentleman opposite is being examined. His case was that this was exactly like an approved society and that to take this £100,000 was to rob or confiscate money belonging to an approved society. I point out that the first difference is that it is not a society and is not like the approved societies, which are managed by their members. It is a Fund created by the Government under an Act of Parliament for the purpose of dealing with and finding benefits for those serving men who were unable to join approved societies. There are 23,000 entitled to benefit under this Fund. There are, as a matter of fact, at this moment about 160,000 serving men who are paying contributions, but only on an average 400 out of those who leaves the Service per annum join this Fund because of their impaired health. The rest of them, being in good health, go off to the friendly societies, and if the improvements that form part of the Government plan to-day are carried out they will go into those societies fully paid up without having to wait before they are entitled to benefit. This is not a society nor anything like a society. It is managed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, by an official committee, not of members, and not appointed by members, but nominees of the various Government Departments. It is quite unlike an approved society. It is a Government guarantee of benefit. That is quite different. Then again the members themselves are entitled to limited benefits. They are not entitled, as members of
approved societies are, to normal benefits and additional benefits. They are specifically prevented by the Act of Parliament from having additional benefits at all. When we come to inquire whose property it is that the right hon. Gentleman charges us with confiscating, what is the answer? Whose is it? Can he say whose property it is that we are confiscating? He has no right to charge us with confiscation unless he can tell us whose property it is that we are alleged to be confiscating.

Mr. MacDONALD: The three sections of the contributors.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Let us examine who they are. One section of the contributors is the War Office, or the Admiralty, or the Air Department. That is the Government. [HON. MEMBERS:"No !"] I cannot draw any distinction. It is the Government. It is votes voted by the House of Commons and expended by the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry in contributions towards the insurance of these men over whom these Government Departments are responsible. Surely that is Government money—taxpayers' money.

HON. MEMBERS: No !

Mr. MacDONALD: Is there any difference between that and the stamps that we have to buy as employers, say, for our Office of Works people?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The difference is that in one case it is the Government and in the other they are private individuals. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whose property it is that he says we are confiscating. His answer is the three parties to the insurance. I am going to examine who those three are. One is the Government Departments employing the men. The second is the Insurance Votes which pay the two-ninths or the one-seventh. That is the Government again. The third party is the soldiers, sailors or airmen who contribute. Are we confiscating anything that they have any right to at all? [HON. MEMBERS:"Yes !"] Under the Act the rights of the serving soldiers, sailors and airmen are limited. All they are entitled to is ordinary benefits and not additional benefits. The Actuary has certified that not merely the £1,100,000 which is being transferred, but the whole £1,500,000 is surplus to the requirements of the Fund for the benefits to which the
third party is entitled. It is a complete surplus over and above everything to which they are entitled. The surplus arose from the excessive contributions paid in by the Government in either one or other of its capacities. When the right hon. Gentleman is pressed he says it belongs to these three parties. When we examine it we. find that two of the three parties are the Government and the third is only entitled under the Act to limited benefit, and the Actuary has already certified that there is £1,500,000 surplus over and above every benefit to which the Army-and Navy are entitled.
I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman read an extract from the Debates in 1911. I was very desirous of seeing that the serving soldiers, sailors and airmen got everything they were entitled to, largely because they are under discipline and largely because they cannot make their voices heard and agitate for benefit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) met me in 1911, and these Clauses were put into the Act. I hoped to get hospital stoppages abolished at the same time. He would not do that for me, but he did a good many other things, and we got the contribution reduced and the benefits increased. What I said then governs me now. I want to see that the serving men are more fairly treated if any alteration is going to be made. It. was because of that that the memorandum to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) referred yesterday was prepared by me and sent to the Royal Commission on National Insurance. May I remind the House of the immensely strong body of experts who wore on that Royal Commission. They considered that memorandum, and if they had not thought it was a fair and proper provision for the serving soldiers, airmen and seamen, do you think they would have recommended it? Do you think they would have been a party to confiscation? Why should they be likely to support any scheme that was confiscatory? If they thought more benefits ought to have been given than those proposed in that memorandum, do you not think they would have suggested it? It was open to them to suggest that the two improvements I proposed in that memorandum should have been accepted. It was open to them to say,"We will
give them something more."Instead of doing that, they approved of the proposals put before them, and they recommended that legislative action should he taken, and that is now being taken.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman show me in this Report any suggestion by the Royal Commission that £1,100,000 is to be taken out of the fund?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the hon. Member does not think I said that. [HON. MEMBERS:"You did !"] I took the very greatest care not to say anything of the sort. I do not want to father on to the Royal Commission something they did not recommend. The proposal of transferring £1,100,000 was never before the Royal Commission. I never said it was. What I said—if the hon. Member will listen he will understand—was that there was before the Royal Commission a Memorandum drawn up by me proposing two additional benefits. Those two additional benefits were approved by the Royal Commission. If they thought that it was not enough, if they thought that extra benefits beyond those two ought to have been given, it was open to them to recommend it. They did not do anything of the sort, so I can fairly say that in recommending, as they did, that legislative sanction should be given to those benefits they have approved the proposal made by me in the Memorandum. The right hon. Gentleman says that these two benefits are miserable benefits worth, at the most., £60,000. He is quite wrong. £400,000 is being set aside for the purpose of a reserve against the liabilities for the additional benefits which the sailors, soldiers and airmen are getting under these proposals—not the limited benefits to which they have been entitled in the past, but they are to get those benefits plus an additional benefit equal to the average benefits given by the approved societies. We are restoring to them, notwithstanding their impaired health, a position equal to the average of the 'approved societies, and in order to give them that we have set aside £400,000, not £60,000, and the State is assuming a liability to pay one-seventh of those benefits. It is not fair, therefore—it would he absurd—therefore, to talk about confiscation, and to taunt hon. Members on this side of the House with talk about robbery of the
soldiers. It is utterly unfair and it is ridiculous, and such misrepresentation should not be allowed to go unchallenged. It is done, and obviously done, if not by the right hon. Gentleman himself, then by his supporters for party political purposes. [Interruption.] It is done to mislead.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: What about the Zinovieff letter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is done with the obvious intention of creating dissatisfaction in the Forces of the Crown. [HON. MEMBERS:"No, no!"and Interruption]. It is done in order to suggest that they are being unfairly treated. [HON. MEMBERS:"So they are!"] The truth is that, far from being unfairly treated, they are getting greater benefits given to them under this Bill than ever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was able to give under the original Act.

Sir J. SIMON: I very much regret the peroration of the Secretary of State for War. If I may be excused for saying so, really when one considers who are the people who some of us think have the best claim to the benefits from this Fund, it is a pitiable thing, I think it is a shocking thing, that the Debate should be represented as though it were merely a party wrangle. I think the Secretary of State for War will do me the justice to say that the arguments which I tried to put before him yesterday, and which he did not answer, were certainly not inspired by any party purposes. I would far sooner that hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, many of whom served as officers during the War, would even now persuade the Government to do with some portion of this money what seems to me to be the right thing to do with it, than that any party capital should he made out, of it by anybody. I will ask the indulgence of my fellow Members on the Committee, in order to put before them, as clearly as I can, without, I hope, being in any way rhetorical or abusive, how this matter really strikes me. I do not regard it in the least as a party matter. I know perfectly well that there are hon. Members sitting opposite who want to do what is right and fair about this Fund just as much as I do. I am myself perfectly convinced that the House of Commons
is being invited to do something that is mean and shabby, and I must be excused if I put that point of view firmly and clearly.
We may, I think, be allowed to begin at the beginning. The thing is one of those big human things which has got to be considered as a matter of substance and which at the same time has got to be considered accurately. Here is this fund; how did it originate I Did it originate in a way which makes it right and proper for the State to lay hands upon it for general State purposes, or is it a fund which originated in some special way so that, at any rate, it appears to have as its natural beneficiaries some persons who can be described as being among our population? It originated because, long before the Great War, when National Health? Insurance was first established, it was necessary to bring the serving soldier and the serving sailor into the scheme. But you had to bring them into the scheme with very substantial modifications. It was no good, for example, providing for the serving soldier medical benefit if, as a matter of fact, be was going to get as part of the terms of his service the attention of a skilled Army doctor when he was ill. It was no good providing for the serving soldier sickness benefit, because his pay did not stop because for the moment he was unable to do his full day's work. Therefore, it was essential to the scheme, if you were going to bring the serving soldier and sailor within National Insurance, that you should make a suitable modification in their case. The modification was that instead of 4d. the serving soldier should pay 1½d. I would ask hon. Members opposite, especially the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) who always takes such a keen interest in these things, to note particularly that this 1½d. was stopped out of the sailor's own pay. While he was given, according to the recruiting advertisements, so much a day, it was, in fact, stopped out of his pay, this 1½d. week by week, and that is the origin of this fund. At the same time, his employer, the War Office or the Admiralty, was bound by Statute to pay in another 1½d.
The Secretary of State for War was so misinformed on this subject when he spoke yesterday, that he thought that the amount which the War Office or the Admiralty put into this fund was a matter within their own discretion. It, is nothing of the kind. It is just as much a statutory contribution as the statutory contribution of the head of a household who pays so much week by week respect of the insurance of his servant. That is the origin of this fund. It seems to me that if hon. Members knew—I do not care where they sit, because we all want to do what is fair and right about this—if could make that fact really known to all those who are going hereafter to be shepherded into a different. Lobby to carry this proposal, I cannot believe that they would accept this ridiculous contention that a fund which was thus originated was free for the State to take and use for general purposes, without regard to the soldiers and sailors.
The next step was this. After this had gone on far years, I think in 1920, there was a modification made, It made no difference to the substance of the thing in the least.; the, people who pretend that it did are merely seeking for a technical excuse. The substance of it was that there was a revision of pay made, and it was found mote convenient that both the workmen's and the employers' contributions should be embodied in a single vote, one of the Army or Navy Votes of this House, just in the same way as many people who employ domestic servants engage them on the terms that they will give them such and such a wage and that they will pay the stamps on their insurance form, both the employer's and the employé"s. But that does not mean that the soldier or the sailor was no longer contributing. It is a ridiculous piece of chicanery for anybody to suggest it and the last person who ought to make such a suggestion is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who knows perfectly well that every soldier who has fought through the War, every serving soldier, sailor or airman, has been, week by week, building up this Fund that we are talking about to-day. Is there any hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who will tell me that this Fund is none the less available to go into the general financial statement for
the purpose of avoiding an increase in Income Tax? I do not care anything about the technicalities of the matter, but the plain truth is that this Fund is a Fund that was earmarked for the purpose of providing benefits for the class of person who has contributed to it. Nobody who understands this subject can dispute that for one moment.
What is the next point? It is perfectly true that the actual people who are principally being affected by this arc some 20,000 or 30,000 miserable men who are so much the, wrecks of war that they will not be accepted by any insurance society in the, Kingdom. Those are the people who have the principal interest in this Fund. Let hon. and gallant Gentlemen Opposite think of it. It is not the men who came through the War safely and are now fit members of society and able to join this or that approved society—the Hearts of Oak, or whatever it may be—but there are 30,000 unhappy men—and they are being added to at the rate of something like 400 a year—who, try as they may, after having served through the War, are so shattered with shell shock, are so diseased with fever, have suffered so much from standing in cold water in the trenches, that no friendly society will take them in. Those are the People who have got some interest in this money. I ask my fellow Members of the House of Commons, while considering whether they really are going to sit over there as so many dumb Members, not understanding what it is they are being asked to do, can they reconcile this Proposal with their conscience? Can they say,"Oh, this surplus, formed in this way by the contributions of the soldiers and sailors, is available to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to balance his Budget."
Let me put this question to any hon. and gallant Member opposite or to anybody who served in the War, who was a regimental officer, or who sat at an officers' mess in France. There are many who were trusted by their men with some responsibility for looking after some fund or other. Supposing any hon. and gallant Gentleman who was an officer and who was entrusted with the administering of such a fund which was built up by the pennies and halfpennies of his men was to be told:"Well, the fact. is that this fund has provided a
larger surplus than was calculated, therefore, it is quite right to use it to pay for the expenses of the officers' mess." Anybody would think that was shameful, and yet I put it most seriously to the House to consider that, because really it is very much what we are doing now. The officers did not have to contribute to National Health Insurance; they were Income Tax payers as a whole, but no officer who remembers what, he did in those days would ever think of being a silent supporter of a system which takes the men's fund in order to avoid the risk of an increase in the Income Tax.
5.0 P.M.
But the Secretary of State for War goes further—and this is the only point which he has got. He says: "Yes, but, look you, the Act did not provide that out of this Fund the soldier or sailor or airman should get both the minimum benefit and the additional benefit. It only provided that he should get the minimum benefit." That is true and that is a real point. That is one of the reasons why I am so anxious that the House of Commons should really consider what is fair and right about this case. If once hon. Members appreciate what they are being asked to do I am perfectly willing to take the Vote of this or any other House of Commons. But what is the explanation? The explanation has been provided by the Secretary of State for War himself. I called attention in the Committee yesterday to the fact that it was he who had given to the recent Royal Commission on Health Insurance a memorandum from the War Office explaining how that came about. I will read the passage again in which he points out that it was a curious fact that whereas in all other parts of National Health Insurance the contributions were contributions which guaranteed to the beneficiary not only a minimum benefit, but the possibility of additional benefit, but in the case of the soldier or sailor, the only thing guaranteed was minimum benefit. He said the reason was "that some doubt appears to have been felt in 1911 as to the ability of the Fund to meet these liabilities." It is very difficult without experience, to calculate how big a fund you need for the sake of men who years hence come out of the Army in
such a, state that no friendly society will accept them:
An obligation to maintain its solvency was accordingly placed on the Departments. Presumably in view of this condition it was decided that members of the Fund should not be entitled to additional benefits.
It is quite right that we should remember that, as the law stands at this moment, this Fund, which is built up by the soldiers, sailors and airmen—[An HON. MEMBER: "Alone?"] No, no more alone than any other such fund, but in exactly the same way. I have not the slightest desire to exaggerate. Granted that, as the law stands at the moment, that Fund has turned out to be more than sufficient for minimum benefits, I would ask the House of Commons what is the fair thing to do when you have 30,000 men who are the outlaws and exiles of friendly societies and living miserable lives? There is not one of us who does not feel compassion for them, but what is the good of talking about sympathy if, when you find the Fund to which they have contributed is available for additional benefits, you devote it is a sort of average additional benefit, and devote the rest to general S[...] purposes?
I am so convinced that this argument is such a strong one that if I can get it to the minds of hon. Members opposite I do not believe they would ever justify to themselves what is involved. Do not imagine for a moment that this is an electoral point. There are only 30,000 of these people and they are spread all over the country. This is not a raid on the approved societies who, after all, are great bodies with accumulated funds. These men cannot show fight; they have done that before. This is not a raid on education which, after all, could be met by rates. These men have no rates to fall hack on except the poor rate. This Fund ought to be devoted to making a special effort to relieve these unhappy wretches. But, instead of that, it is to be swept away and put at the service of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is never here. The idea the Minister has that this wretched technical point gives him and his Government some justification for taking the Fund is one of the most deplorable statements I have ever heard in the House of Commons. There used to be a saying that in Transpontine drama the law of the stage was
that in the absence of a will the property always went to the nearest villain. Whatever else happens in the absence of the exact purpose which a fund of this sort is designed to serve, it can never be right that the trustee of the fund can take it. The State is the trustee of this Fund. The Minister said this is not like an approved society or a friendly society; the men have no vote. That is one reason why he should be more careful. They are dependent on him and on us. I do not say this with the least desire to make a party point, but I am convinced that people who remember what was really meant by service in the War would not consent to what is being done and would not allow this Fund, built up in this way, to be diverted at the extremity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely for the general purposes of the State. I feel strongly about this, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like a motto I will give him one. It is in the lines of a well-known poet, Clough, who wrote a new edition of the Decalogue:
Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When it's so lucrative to cheat.

Mr. SEXTON: The villain of the piece is not here. He has succeeded, however, in getting substitutes to carry on the work in his absence. What I am concerned about is that this Fund is a heritage left by the men who lay buried in Flanders and beneath the waters of the North Sea and elsewhere to their living comrades. Their memory has been outraged by the very gentlemen who, when they pass the Cenotaph, take off their hats. It is a piece of hypocrisy. These men built up the Fund to help those who live to-day. They were sent out to defend the honour of this country. Then it was a scrap of paper, but to-day you are not concerned in tearing up a scrap of paper, but in tearing up a whole book. The Secretary of State for War dealt with the question of the approved societies. Does not the same principle apply as to approved societies? Were they not told, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) created this Act, that they were to be brought in side by side with the very men now in the approved societies? What is the difference between an employer in industry and an employer in the Government? The employer in industry contributes so much and the worker so much.
If the principle applies there, why does it not apply in this case? Every time I see one of these gentlemen lifting his hat at the Cenotaph it occurs to me that it is a piece of hollow mockery for them to honour the memory of men whose memory they are abusing by the action they are carrying out here to-day. I believe that this is done, and has been done all this Session, to cover up the tracks of a political buccaneer who is trying to cover up his sins by taking other people's property.

Mr. STEPHEN: Before we go to a Division, I would like to gut a question to the representative of the Government, The Secretary of State for War has felt somewhat sore with regard to the accusation of confiscation and robbery. Would it not be possible for the representative of the Government to give the House a detailed statement of the amount contributed by the members of the Services, the men in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and the amount contributed by the State—a definite statement with regard to this Fund from the beginning in each case. It is true that ultimately the State became the contributor instead of the men, but I think also that the representative of the Government would agree that that was simply part of the soldier's, or sailor's or the airmen's pay, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). If the House could get those definite figures, showing the proportions contributed in each case, I believe the proposal of the Government would be defeated, or that they would at least have to withdraw those proposals. If we could get a simple statement showing the amount contributed by soldiers, sailors and airmen in the aggregate, and the amount contributed by the Government at the rate of 1½d. per week for each member of the Services during the time that the State has been a contributor on behalf of these members of the Services, I believe this proposal of the Government would fall to the ground and would be shown to be utterly defenceless.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: We have had some very moving speeches, especially one from the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) as to the amount contributed by the different parties does not affect me
in the slightest. What does weigh with me is that the Government are going to give additional benefits. That weighs with me very much. In considering the question of the Treasury taking the £1,100,000, I put to myself this point: Supposing the scheme had failed and that instead of being able to give the men the benefits proposed under the 1½d. scheme, there had been a deficit of £1,100,000. Who would have had to make up that money? It seems to me to be quite clear that the State would have had to find the money. It strikes me somewhat in the same way as when children make up a little scheme with their fathers. If anything goes wrong father pays, in addition to paying his money week by week. If the State has to pay the money in the event of a failure, it seems to me that, providing the benefits are guaranteed, the State has a right to take the surplus which may have accumulated.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I am glad that at last we have one hon. Member on the Government side whose conscience has been aroused, and who is trying to salve it by some slight argument to justify the action proposed to be taken by the Government. The justification put forward by the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) is that the men are to have additional benefits. It is not fair to describe them as additional benefits. They are the average benefits paid by the societies as a whole. The soldiers who have this very large surplus standing to their credit are entitled not to the average benefits of the good and the weak societies combined, but to the very best benefits paid by the very best societies.

Sir B. FALLE: Benefits that are not promised.

Mr. HARRIS: The only justification for this Bill being pushed through without any concessions is that it is mixed up with the Budget. The Budget has been delayed; it is overdue. It ought to have been discussed this week but owing to the fact that it is contingent on the passing of this Bill, it has been delayed. We are discussing this Bill in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not deign to grace the House with his presence, and we have to
be satisfied at the moment with the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. It is on those grounds that I move that the Debate be adjourned, in order that we may have an opportunity of a financial statement from a Minister responsible for finance.
It is a very sinister thing that this particular proposal is being guided through the House by the Secretary of State for War. He has been sent here in order to try to justify the proposal. I remember very clearly the Debates on the original National Health Insurance Bill, when it was being guided through the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The present Secretary of State for War was very loud then in denouncing the proposals because of the unfair treatment of the soldier and sailor. His conscience was a little stirred this afternoon. I think he began to remember some of his past speeches, in which pointed out that the soldier and sailor had equal claims with civilians for the benefits under the insurance scheme; that they, too, suffered sickness and that they, too, were penalised if they fell ill. He pointed out that when a soldier goes to hospital, not only has he the discomfort of sickness, but he suffers a deduction from his pay for the time he is sick, in order to prevent malingering. In his speech on that occasion the present Secretary of State for War pointed out that the soldier was in a very different position from the ordinary civilian sick man, because he had to put up with the military doctor, and could not select his own medical officer as could the civilian who belonged to an approved society; that while he was lying in hospital he had a deduction from his pay, which was not made up under the insurance scheme; that he had no means of bringing his case before any committee; and that he had to suffer silently because he was a disciplined Service man. Therefore, said the right hon. Gentleman, he had a special claim for seine additional benefit. That benefit was not provided under the original Act of 1911, because the actuaries in those days did not think the funds were available for the purpose. Now the funds are available, and I think it is a very sinister thing that the Secretary of State for War, who, when he was in Opposition, said all the things which I have just mentioned, should be here today defending a proposal to divert the
available funds to another purpose. He stated that—
In the Army 7d. per day is deducted from pay when the man is in hospital, end he also loses corps pay and messing allowance. The actual amount of deductions for hospital stoppage alone in 1910–11 was £60,000."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1911; col. 1498, Vol. 30.]
He took £60,000 as the amount of deductions for hospital stoppage, but it is considerably more to-day, because the costs are considerably higher. There are many ways in which this Fund could be made useful for the discharged soldier. There is nothing more tragic at the present time than the large numbers of unemployed men who belonged to the ranks of the Army and the Navy. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has attempted to get the number of ex-service men who are now receiving Poor Law relief. In the East End of London a large percentage of the young men out of work are ex-soldiers and ex-sailors, who lost the best part of their lives in service when they might have been learning a trade. Many of them are suffering physically from disabilities, which make it difficult for them to find employment. If the Government are at a loss to know what to do with this surplus, there are many channels to which it could be diverted. It might be used in training the men and helping them over their difficulties. The men cannot express themselves; they are silent members of society. They are denied the right of organisation. They cannot hold meetings.

Sir B. FALLE: These men are out the Service.

Mr. HARRIS: The members of the Army and Navy are paying in order to receive benefits, and have been paying since 1911. Let me quote what the present Secretary of State for War said in 1911:
I want to remind the Committee that there are many thousands of men serving in the Army and Navy who, as they are under discipline, cannot agitate for themselves, and have not been able to take part in the deputations to and interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time. Neither have they been able to appear in the Lobby of the House of Commons or to approach Members of Parliament, for they have no organisation. It is true that one of the friendly societies in which Service men are enrolled has written to the right hon. Gentleman, but
the majority of the Service men have had no spokesman at all in connection with this Clause. Therefore, it is all the more necessary for the Committee to he not only strictly fair hut even a little generous; and if there is any question of doubt, it should be given on the side of the soldier or sailor and not on the side"—
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will mark these words—
of the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1911; col. 1494, Vol. 30.]
Now, the right hon. Gentleman is in the pocket of the Treasury. He has forgotten his words. He has forgotten his agitation for the soldier and sailor. Now he is in office he gives them little thought. He is the mere creature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who does not even deign to be present. Now the right hon. Gentleman is betraying the men whom he professed to protect. He is betraying the cause of which he once professed to be the champion. One begins to doubt his sincerity. It was mere talk. It was a mere attempt to climb into office, and now he is in office he forgets his past oratory and the men whom he sought to protect. The money is there, and he is going to hand it over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable him to balance his Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not trouble to be present in order to see the betrayal by the Secretary of State for War of the men who are in his particular charge. For these reasons, and because this is an Economy Bill which particularly demands the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of the Treasury, I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Secretary of State for War has been brought to the Treasury Bench to support this infamous proposal and he has endeavoured to do it, if I read his mind correctly, literally ashamed of the task he is trying to perform. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be here too to undertake this task, because he is the person responsible for all the trouble with which we are now confronted. The position is this: the Chancellor of the Exchequer ends in the Army and Navy Insurance Fund a surplus of £1,500,000. He knows that it actually belongs to the men serving in or discharged from His-Majesty's Forces.
Therefore, he tells them on the one hand that he will give them a sop. He says, "You shall have £400,000 set aside in order to provide you with additional benefits on the lines of the benefits given to members of approved societies." On the other hand he takes away from them the remaining sum of £1,100,000. That is the point on which the House is asked to decide to-day. Were it not for the keen desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to balance their Budget, I feel sure that they would be really ashamed of these proposals. I should like to have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War while I deal with a point which he raised with the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald). My right hon. Friend claimed that this Fund was equivalent to an approved society, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, turned on him, in fact pounced on him as a Secretary of State for War should, I suppose, and said that it was nothing of the kind. Let us see therefore what it really is. There is an actuary's report on the subject, and the Actuary is a very capable gentleman who knows more about this Fund than either of the Gentlemen on the Front Bench. I readily confess that he knows much more about it than I do. This is what the Actuary says about this Fund:
It is proposed to transfer £1,100,000 from the Navy, Army and Air Force insurance Fund to the Exchequer, and to amend the provisions of Section 59 of the National Insurance Act, 1924, in order that additional benefits may be granted as though the Fund were an approved society to discharged men who receive their benefits from the Fund.
As a matter of fact this Fund has always fallen into the category of an approved society. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but the huge surplus of this Fund has been brought about because the Government has paid much more than it ought to have paid in respect of men serving in the Forces."

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hear, hear !

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman says"Hear, hear."The Actuary knows more on that point, too, than he does about the subject, and this is what the Actuary says as to the reasons for the surplus. It is directly in contradic-
tion to what the right hon. Gentleman has said—and here may I say that the right hon. Gentleman would have the Committee to believe, if he could, by implication that the Royal Commission in fact had agreed to all these proposals. When I interjected he had to admit that the Royal Commission did nothing of the kind. But this is what the Actuary says with regard to the reasons for the surplus:
The surplus arises from a variety of causes, of which the following are the more important: (1) The rate of interest earned by the Fund has been substantially in excess of that assumed—namely, 3 per cent., in the basis of the contributions and reserve values. Further, the surplus during its growth has earned a large amount of interest.''
That is a very vital reason, perhaps the most, important, reason of all. The Actuary, of course, gives other reasons. This is the second reason:
(2). The cost of administration, in the case of serving men, has been much below the sum provided in the contributions.
Nothing about the Government contributions there. Then he gives a third reason—namely:
(3) The contributions contain a margin which in the case of approved societies is carried to their contingencies fund, but which in the present ease has accrued directly to the principal fund.
In the first three of these series of reasons for the surplus as given by the Actuary there is not a single word said about the Government's contribution being excessive. if the right hon. Gentleman wants all the reasons, I will give them. The fourth reason is this:
(4) The reserves released in respect of men who were killed during the War or who died as the result of wounds or disease, due to the War.
Some Members of the House think it unfair on our part to mention the fact that a part of the great surplus of this Fund is caused by the fact that men died during the War, who, if they had lived, world have been entitled to draw benefit from the Fund. But the Actuary supports that point of view, and gives it as one of the main reasons for the surplus. In fact, throughout the whole of the six reasons given by the Actuary for the surplus of this Fund there is not one reference to the suggestion that the Government has been too generous in its contributions. The Secretary of State for War was some-
what flippant on another point. He said that an approved society is a corporation managed by its members, but this is a fund covering certainly a number of men, and is not an approved society. I ask him whether he really believes that all the approved societies of this country are controlled by their members. He knows that there are some large approved societies run by capitalist insurance companies where the members have nothing whatever to do with administration. They have no power and no say in the management. That is in the hands of a body of men who are not themselves insured at all. Practically the only approved societies that are administered by the members themselves are the friendly and the trade union approved societies.
The Secretary of State for War contends that the Government are entitled to raid this Fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer not many weeks ago decided to raid the Road Fund, and hon. Members opposite who are silent about the proposed raid immediately said, and rightly, that the taxation in respect of the Road Fund was made to cover a very definite liability and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to raid that Fund because he should not use any money for purposes other than that for which it was intended. If I understand correctly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to climb down in his proposal to raid the Road Fund. But he is raiding this Fund, and he knows that the usual forces against him cannot be rallied. These men are under discipline and they cannot protest in the least against what he proposes to do. I have said that the Secretary of State for War would have the Committee believe if he could, but he failed, that the Royal Commission actually endorsed the proposals the Government are now placing before the Committee. Let me read what the Royal Commission said, and I should like hon. Members to follow me because it is very important in view of what the right hon. Gentleman declared a few moments ago. I want to disabuse the minds of hon. Members that the Royal Commission are backing up the Government, in the least in this matter. They are not. This is what they say:
We have received a statement from the Secretary of State for War on behalf of
the Three Service Departments, submitting two suggestions for improving the position of men discharged from the Forces as regards title to additional benefit. These suggestions were (1) that the benefits payable out of the Navy, Army and Air Force Fund to discharged men who are established as permanent members of the Fund should not in future be confined to the normal benefits of the Act, but should include also additional benefits equivalent to the average of those provided by approved societies in general.
The Government propose to do this, and I agree. The second suggestion is
(2) that men who join approved societies on their discharge from the Forces should not be subject to the ordinary waiting period before becoming entitled to additional benefits.
We shall require some explanation later on if the Government accepts that proposal. But I pass on to what is vital in the recommendations:
We are informed that the financial position of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund (the solvency of which is guaranteed by the Service Departments) is so satisfactory that it can well afford the cost which would be involved in giving effect to the first of these two suggestions, and that there is a sufficient margin in the contribution payable during service to provide reasonably for the second.
With regard to the £1,100,000, this is what the Commission say:
We are also satisfied that there is ample justification for the proposition that the insurance rights of men who have served with the Forces f the Crown should be improved in the manner suggested, and we, therefore recommend that statutory provision should be made accordingly.
There is not one word in that recommendation about taking the £1,100,000 from the Fund.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not say there was.

Mr. DAVIES: No, but you implied it. The implication was definitely that these proposals were being backed up by the Royal Commission; but after his explanation I think we are satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that inference in the words he used. I raised a point last night with regard to the Advisory Committee, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman gave a reply. It was to this effect, that the Committee was actually set up, but that it has nothing to do with it, meaning that the Advisory Committee set up under Regulation 20 has nothing to do with these
proposals. I am not a lawyer, and I do not understand the law; but in reading that Regulation I should have thought for decency's sake that any Government, of whatever political colour it may be, would have asked the Advisory Committee its opinion as to the disposal of this Fund. Surely if an Advisory Committee is set up to deal with problems connected with this Fund it should be asked its opinion, especially when a sum of £1,100,000 is about to be taken away from it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any actuarial calculation has been made as to whether the £400,000 left in the Fund is sufficient to meet these additional benefits; and whether the additional benefits which are now proposed will be extended if and when the extended schemes of approved societies are adopted.
I have little more to say on this subject, except to declare my emphatic protest against what the Government is doing. They are treating these men who were bruised and maimed in the War unkindly and unjustly, and if the Government had any sense of honour at all, they would withdraw these Resolutions even now. I know that argument has no effect on them, but I thought we might by this time have shamed them into withdrawing the Resolutions. They will, I think, he ashamed of them later on, although we have been told that we must not use these points for political purposes. The Government itself will find, when they go to the country on the next occasion, that they will suffer heavily because of their attitude on this question. One of the most powerful exponents of the Government policy issued a pamphlet recently,

and I will conclude by quoting what it said, as it is most appropriate in this connection. It is a pamphlet issued by the Conservative party. It is very interesting, and makes delightful reading when you have nothing else to do. This is what the pamphlet says:
Parliament has regarded Labour as a sort of wild animal of uncertain temper, but of formidable power, which is to be cajoled into accepting as little as possible of its demands, but, whenever it shows its teeth, is to be placated by precipitate concession.
We on this side of the House desire once again to register our protest against the action of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman would have us believe that if this fund was an approved society the Government would not raid it at all. That was the implication of his remarks. But he is condemned out of his own mouth by what has been done with Clause 1 of the Economy Bill. The Government are raiding the funds of approved societies under that Clause. We are fighting this Bill Clause by Clause and we shall continue to do so, because we feel sure that we represent, in this connection, not only the thousands of soldiers covered by this fund, but in our point of view we represent also the 15,000,000 people who are members of the great approved societies.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSrose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 144.

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[5.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R, I.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M, S.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Clarry, Reginald George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Clayton. G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Astor, Viscountess
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bullock, Captain M.
Cope, Major William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burman, J. B.
Couper, J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Campbell, E. T.
Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.


Bennett, A. J.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bethel, A
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Blundell, F. N.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J.A. (Birm., W.)
Davies, Dr, Vernon


Briscoe, Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Chapman, Sir S.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Dixey, A. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Drewe, C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandon, Lord


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Jacob, A. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Savery, S. S.


Ellis, R. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Elveden, Viscount
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fermoy, Lord
Lougher, L.
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lumley, L. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gee, Captain R.
Macquisten, F. A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain D,
Templeton, W. P.


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w,E)
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tinne, J. A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Waddington, R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hartington, Marquess of
Murchison, C. K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Neville, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Preston, William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ramsden, E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Withers, John James


Holt, Captain H. P.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Womersley, W. J.


Homan, C. W. J.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyds)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts"y)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Huntingfield, Lord
Rye, F. G.



Hurts, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurst, Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gosling, Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Barr, J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Bromfield, William
Day, Colonel Harry
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)


Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Duckworth, John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Dunnico, H.
Hardie, George D.


Cape, Thomas
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Harris, Percy A.


Charleton, H. C.
Fenby, T. D.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Clowes, S.
Forrest, W.
Hayday, Arthur


Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)




Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Taylor, R. A.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Purcell, A. A.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John
Warne G. H.


Kenyon, Barnet
Sexton, James
Watts Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kirkwood, D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lawson, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Whiteley, W.


Lowth, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wiggins, William Martin


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smillie, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Windsor, Walter


March, S.
Spencer, G. A. (Braxtowe)
Wright, W.


Maxton, James
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Montague, Frederick
Stamford, T, W.



Morris, R. H.
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Murnin, H.
Sullivan, Joseph



Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." put accordingly, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [13TH APRIL].

Resolutions reported,
1. "That the sum of one million one hundred thousand pounds shall he transferred to the Exchequer from the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund.
2. "That in the event of the constitution of an account to be called the Bankruptcy and Companies' Winding-up (Fees) Account ':—
(a) The Treasury shall be empowered in each financial year to pay into the Exchequer out of the moneys standing to the credit of that Account a sum equal to the amount which in the last preceding financial year fell to be defrayed out of any Votes of Parliament, other than Votes for the Board of Trade, in respect of salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, or under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, in relation to the winding-up of companies in England;

(b) There shall be paid out of the said Account into the Exchequer—

(i) as soon as may be after the passing of an Act giving effect to this Resolution, an amount equal to the sums transferred to the said Account from the accounts to which there have respectively been paid the bankruptcy investments dividends, the bankruptcy fees, the companies investments dividends, and the companies winding-up fees, less a sum of one hundred thousand pounds; and
(ii) thereafter, the amount standing to the credit of the said Account on the thirty-first day of March in each financial year, less an amount equal to one-third of the aggregate amount issued out of the said Account in-that year for the purpose of meeting the charges in respect of salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, or under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, in relation to the winding-up of companies in England."

Motion made, nod Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 147.

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[6.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Bennett, A. J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bethel, A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks.Newb'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Buckingham, Sir H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Blundell, F. N.
Bull, Rt. Hon, Sir William James


Astor, Viscountess
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Bullock, Captain M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brass, Captain W.
Burman, J. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Richard George
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Campbell, E. T.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. B (Prtsmth.S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ropner, Major L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chapman, Sir S
Homan, C. W. J.
Rye, F. G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandon, Lord


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Couper, J. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shepperson, E. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, J.(Hertf"d, Hemel Hempsf"d)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Drewe, C.
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G F. (Will'sden, E.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ellis, R. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Elveden, Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Templeton, W. P.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fermoy, Lord
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Fester, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Tinne, J. A.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Waddington, R


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Gee, Captain R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. S. T. C.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Grace, John
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Neville, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Withers, John James


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Bad.)
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Perring, Sir William George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hartington, Marquess of
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, William
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hawke, John Anthony
Raine, W.



Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Major Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, F. A.
Cluse, W. S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Ammon, Charles George
Bromley, J.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)
Compton, Joseph


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, G.
Connolly, M.


Barr, J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon Noel
Cove, W. G.


Batey, Joseph
Cape. Thomas
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Beckett, John (Gate(head)
Charleton, H. C.
Crawfurd, H. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clowes, S.
Dalton, Hugh




Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Bun (Bermondsey, Rothirhithe)


Day, Colonel Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dennison, R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Snell, Harry


Duckworth, John
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Fenby, T. D.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sullivan, Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Sulton, J. E


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Taylor, R. A.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Thurtle, E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris, R. H.
Townend, A. E.


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Varley, Frank B,


Guest, J. (York, Homsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Oliver, George Harold
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry
Warne, G. H.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.
Wiggins, William Martin


Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James
Windsor, Walter


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wright, W.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A Barnes.


Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. WEBB: This Resolution, in comparison with the other, is a comparatively small and venial appropriation, in so far as it is concerned with any existing surplus. This is merely the securing of £400,000 by combining two accounts, one of which has a surplus and the other a deficit.. It would not be necessary, indeed, to trouble the House with any discussion on the subject were if not that there is a further point, in addition to the appropriation of the existing surplus, and I do not think the House ought to agree—at any rate not without some more specific explanation from the Department than was given yesterday—with the proposal of the Resolution. The Resolution proposes not merely to authorise the appropriation of an existing surplus, but year after year there is to be a continuing appropriation of an annual surplus with the exception of a small sum reserved for working expenses. It is proposed that there should be a continued
appropriation from these fees towards the Exchequer. The only justification for it which we heard yesterday was that it would he unfair to those professional men who act privately in the liquidation of companies to reduce the Board of Trade charge and thus compel these professional men to reduce their fees when they act in the winding-up of companies. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself would regard that as a serious reason, but what is serious is the proposal to continue the exaction of these fees in connection with the winding-up of companies at an unnecessarily high rate and at a rate which is calculated to yield a considerable annual surplus over and above the expenses to which the Board of Trade is put in performing this work.
I am not prepared to object to a fee being levied in order to cover the expenses of the service and no more. In any case, whether it simply covers the expenses of the service or not, it is a tax, and a most objectionable tax, but still, there is some justification for such a tax being charged as would just cover expenses. There is no justification, however, for the maintenance of an un-
necessarily high scale of fees in order to add a little to tae revenue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is an unfair tax, which falls upon the creditors of these companies, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give any justification for the maintenance of a scale of fees, which is now seen to be unnecessarily high, merely in order to get this annual surplus. I ask him whether he can hold out any hope or make any suit of promise that the scale will be reduced. I do not mean that it should be reduced so as to extinguish absolutely the annual surplus. There must be a slight turn in favour of the Exchequer in order to avoid loss. But the fees are now altogether en too high a scale. I, therefore, ask the House to withhold its assent to this Resolution, not because it is the appropriation of an existing surplus, but because it empowers the appropriation, year after year, of a continuing surplus which is only yielded because the fees are too high. There is a further objection which I thought was put very aptly by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) yesterday. There is a special objection to having large surpluses in these funds, because it means that part of the tax revenue of the Crown is abstracted from the House of Commons control. That is a constitutional reason why these unnecessarily large annual surpluses should not be continued, virtually by exaction from creditors who have already lost their money in the companies which have to be wound up.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am sorry to trouble the House, but I fear I cannot allow what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has said to pass without some protest on one Point. If I understood him correctly, he said definitely that these fees were in the nature of a tax. I have not had time to look up the Statutes under which they are levied, but I believe I am right in saying that there is no justification for describing them as a tax, and the point which I endeavoured to make yesterday was that they are merely intended to be fees leviable in order to pay actual expenses.

Mr. WEBBindicated assent,

Mr. HERBERT: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman apparently agrees with my view, though not with my language. I intended yesterday to differentiate between money which is levied for the
purpose of bringing money into the National Exchequer by means of taxes, and the levying of fees for the purpose of some particular expenses. These fees ought to be equivalent to the stamp duties which are charged for post office purposes, in order to pay expenses. They should he on the same lines as the other fees which are charged in all Courts of Justice in this country, in order to pay the expenses of the Courts, other than the salaries of the Judges and the actual buildings in which the Court s sit. Therefore, though I cannot allow this description of these fees as a tax to go without some protest or explanation, apart from that, I can only repeat what I said yesterday, and what the right hon. Member for Seaham has stated this afternoon, that it is not right that fees levied in this way, for the purposes of Departmental expenses and not for purposes of revenue, should be of any amount which is appreciably in excess of what, is required for the particular purpose. I hope that, although the present Resolution, in my opinion, is thoroughly justified, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government will see to it in future that when there is a glaring case of fees being far too high, they will he reduced, and I hope that when I am not here, some other Members of this House will in future watch this matter and see that some attempt is made to reduce these fees when there is proper justification for it.

Mr. TAYLOR: Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in dealing with this Resolution, gave us what purported to be an explanation of its purpose, As I understand it, the £450,000 arises because, on the bankruptcy fees account, there is a deficit, whereas on the companies fees account there is a favourable balance. He told us that it was proposed to retain £100,000, which was to be used for capital expenditure. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we could have a fuller explanation of the exact use to which that £100,000 is to be put, and I should like to press upon the President of the Board of Trade the injustice of any proposal which attempts to derive an annual revenue to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his extravagant expenditure by charging unreasonably high
fees, which represent virtually a tax upon the creditors of a bankrupt estate or of a company that is being wound up. I feel quite sure that the House is entitled to a fuller explanation than it has yet had before it assents to this Resolution.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: There are on or two matters that require elucidation before this Resolution is agreed to. I understand the balance of £450,000 which now exists is a balance which has been collected during previous years, and does not represent a balance which has been obtained in one year only. I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many years it has taken to achieve this large sum of £450,000, or, to put it in another way, what is the average surplus which is shown on the Fund concerned with the winding-up of companies, and how much surplus the right hon. Gentleman expects to get next year and the following years, or in an average year, for the purpose of helping to defray the salaries and expenses of his Department in this respect. The other question I should like to ask is in regard to the sum of £100,000 which is being reserved. We heard yesterday from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that it was wanted for working capital, and I should like to know what it is in connection with this Department which requires the retention of a capital of £100,000 at the present time.
Apart from the matters of information which one requires, there is the much more serious point which is a question of principle. If the fees which are collected in this Department are excessive, it means that the creditors are suffering, because money is being devoted to the payment of fees which should be paid in relief of the creditors. Then there is the point which has been taken already, that although these moneys are prescribed as fees, this use of them really constitutes them as a tax. I believe there was a time when bankruptcy was a crime. To-day, apparently, it is a privilege which a good many people are anxious to enjoy, and it seems to me that this is an attempt to tax the privilege, because it really does mean that. If you are paying definite fees, and then taking the fees away from the Department entitled to collect them for a certain
purpose, and using them for the payment of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade in connection with bankruptcy work, that is, in effect, a novel and camouflaged way of imposing taxation upon a limited class of people, and this House has not had the opportunity, which it ought to have in all matters of taxation, of saying how taxation is to be levied and for what purposes the money collected is to be used. Therefore, I think this Resolution does embody what may be a very dangerous principle. After all, the bankruptcy department is in essence a department of the administration of justice, and I venture to that it is not right that a profit should be made out of the Department which exists for the purpose of administering justice in this matter.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I can relieve the mind of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) of one anxiety at once, by saying that I am to get nothing out of the bankruptcy account, nor does the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else make anything out of bankruptcy funds, because, as a matter of fact, the fees, as was stated last night, are not sufficient to cover the costs of bankruptcy. Therefore, what we are really concerned with here are fees for company liquidation. The right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) suggested that the companies' fees were too high, but really that is not so, because the bankruptcy fees were raised, though the companies' fees have not been raised since the War, and therefore, as a matter of fact, a company in compulsory liquidation to-day under the auspices of the Official Receiver is getting its liquidation done at the pre-War rate, which is, I think, the only thing that is being done at the Pre-War rate. Furthermore, you can get your company liquidated very much cheaper by the Official Receiver than you can by an outside liquidator.

Mr. WEBB: That is against private enterprise!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I make the right hon. Gentleman a present of that point in favour of Socialism. The machinery of the Official Receiver's office for liquidating companies is much more economical and cheaper than is the machinery of liquidation by an outside liquidator.

Mr. D. HERBERT: The point is not really whether the people are getting companies liquidated at pre-War prices or more cheaply by the Official Receiver than by an unofficial liquidator. The sole point is whether they are paying more than the expenses of the Government Department which does it, and my submission is that payments levied in this way which are more than sufficient for the expenses are unconstitutional and improper.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was coming to that point, but the first point raised was that these fees wore unreasonably high, and I do not think it can be said that a fee is unreasonably high which has not been raised since the War, and which is cheaper than is charged outside. The next point was whether it is improper to charge these fees, and in regard to that, I will point out that the surplus does not come out of the fees themselves. It comes out of the interest on the investments. I should not be surprised at protests being made if we were trying to charge a very high fee in company liquidation in order to make money, but that is not the position as it is to-day. The item we are proposing to take is £350,000, leaving £100,000 in the Fund, which is the accumulated interest, and that, even my right hon. Friend thinks, is reasonable. The balance which we shall take from year to year, it is impossible to estimate exactly, but basing it on past experience we estimate, I think, that it will be between £40,000 and £50,000, and the reason why a margin is left in the Fund from year to year is in order, not that there may be any capital expenditure, but that the ordinary expenditure on salaries, office expenses, and so on, properly chargeable against the companies department may be defrayed without coming to Parliament, and taking the figure which you leave in on running account at one-third of the expenses, that seems to me to be reasonable and practical. For these reasons, I submit that there is no constitutional point which arises here, and that it is reasonable that the House should give the taxpayer the benefit of the interest on these investments.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have had a very interesting admission from the President of the Board of Trade to night,
that in this particular Department, at any rate, the work of winding-up companies can be done very much cheaper, and, I think, better when it is performed by an official of the State than when it is done by a private liquidator. That is one illustration of what we hear from time to time from those benches when they are dealing with particular issues, although when they come to generalise, they are inclined to tell us we are entirely mistaken in our views. I do not, however, rise to deal with that point, but to direct attention to the question of the continued payment of this fund into the Exchequer. We are all agreed that as far as this sum of £450,000 has arisen, it has arisen owing to the way in which the machinery has been worked in the past, and it is not unreasonable that that should be handed over to the Exchequer. It is when we come to the sum of £45,000 that we join issue with the Government. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) had incorrectly described the whole of these fees as a tax. That is not the case. We on this side, and, I am quite sure, my right hon. Friend, fully appreciate that in so far as these fees are merely the proper charge for the work done, they are not in the nature of a tax. What he did suggest, and what, I think, is correct, is that if the fees charged are larger than is necessary, then that surplus is in the nature of a tax, and, we are told, it is going to amount every year to £45,000.
The President of the Board of Trade sets up a defence, which I do not think was offered at all yesterday in regard to this matter. He says this has nothing to do with the fees. It has entirely to do with the surplus interest accruing. I confess I have not been able to follow exactly the line he has taken on this matter. I do not fully understand why, if these sums are due to interest accrued, it is not possible to credit these sums to the companies which are being wound-up. He tells us that that is impossible, and, therefore, assuming that to be so, I am prepared to accept that view; but, if that be so, then I venture to suggest that this sum, even if it cannot be credited to the particular companies, from which the interest has arisen, at any rate it should be used for further reduction of the fees. I cannot see any justification for the State making a profit out of these companies.
Whether it arises from the fees being too high, or whether it arises from other things in connection with the winding-up, it should be used for the benefit of the companies and the creditors, and I do hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to meet the House in this matter. I am quite sure if we had a larger attendance here to-night, not only on these benches, but of hon. Members in all parts of the House, they would see the reasonableness of this position, that it is unfair to exact money from these companies at the expense of their creditors, in order to make a profit for the State. We on this side call that exaction a tax. I do not

think the hon. Member for Watford, when he understands this explanation, will disagree from our attitude on this matter, and I believe the President of the Board of Trade would find, if he took the opinion of Members on his own side of the House, that there would be a very considerable support for this point of view. I do hope, therefore, even at this late hour, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us in this matter.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the, said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 151.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[6.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Dawson, sir Philip
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dixey, A. C.
Howard, Captain Hon, Donald


Astbury, Lieut Commander F. W.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A, U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Huntingfield, Lord


Balniel, Lord
Ellis, R. G.
Hurd, Percy A.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Elveden, Viscount
Hurst, Gerald B.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Bethel, A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Falle. Sir Bertram G.
Jacob, A. E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brass, Captain W.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Kindersley. Major G. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fraser, Captain Ian
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Brittain, sir Harry
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hex ham)
Gee, Captain R.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O (Handsw'th)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, J. de V.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Goff, Sir Park
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bullock, Captain M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lumley, L. R.


Burman, J. B.
Grace, John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Greene. W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gretton, Colonel John
McLean, Major A,


Campbell, E. T.
Grotrian, H. Brent
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Macquisten, F. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir P. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Harland, A.
Meller. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Harrison, G. J. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Clarry, Reginald George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Clayton, G. C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hawke, John Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Murchison, C. K.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hogg, Rt Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylsbone)
Neville, R. J.


Curzon, Captain viscount
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd]
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Holt, Captain H. P.
Nottall, Ellis


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Homan, C. W. J.
Penny, Frederick George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Perring, Sir William George
Shepperson, E. W.
Waddington, R.


Philipson, Mabel
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Preston, William
Skelton, A. N.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Raine, W.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wells, S. R.


Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Rentoul, G. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Rice, Sir Frederick
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Wilson. Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Hon. o. F. G. (Westm'oland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rye, F. G.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salmon, Major I.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Streatfelid, Captain S. R.
Withers, John James


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Womersley, W. J.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Sandon, Lord
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sdwerby)
Tinne, J. A.



Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ritson, J.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddmfield)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Keaworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Duckworth, John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Forrest, W.
Morris. R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Grimths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe



Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 13th, April.]

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of Section 83 of principal Act.)

Amendment proposed [13th April] In page 3, line 35, to leave out the word"twenty-seven,"and to insert instead thereof the word"twenty-eight."—[Mr. Mackinder.]

Question again proposed,"That the word twenty-seven ' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the large number of letters received by hon. Members during the Recess, representing hundreds of thousands of members of approved societies, quite justify hon. Members on both sides of the House in making an appeal to the Minister of Health to postpone this Clause for a period of 12 months. It has been urged that the members of approved societies have not had an opportunity of examining these proposals. If we are to be given an opportunity of looking into this matter, and particularly the effect upon the more unfortunate members who are stricken down with illness, they should be given a chance of expressing their opinion in no uncertain manner. Approved society members and approved societies have expressed themselves very forcibly in regard to these proposals during the past few days The Minister of Health fully understands the whole problem, and he is aware of what is taking place. I think the financial situation justifies the Minister of Health in ignoring the suggestion which has been made to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that unless he collects this money during the early period of office of the present Government there will he no money for him to disburse during the last part of his term of office.
I think the Minister of Health ought to give this mite of justice to the millions of people who have had no chance of obtaining any of the benefits which the sum of money now being taken away from them would confer. Although the Amendment only appeals for an
adjournment for 12 months, I submit that the effect of this Clause would be to bring such pressure to bear on the Minister of Health that if he allows this Amendment to be carried there would be no possibility of the right hon. Gentleman repeating the same proposal in years to come. We gather than, based upon 1924 payments, this extra imposition upon approved societies will mean a reduction in potential benefits of approximately 3s. per person. When the percentage of the people who fall ill is brought to the normal level, the amount available for each individual case is going to be considerably reduced by the operation of this particular Clause. It seems to me that the extra consideration which will be given to this Clause by postponing it, as provided for by the Amendment, would tend to cause some hesitation on the part of the Minister of Health before imposing this additional payment. This Amendment calla for a very necessary delay. It merely postpones for 12 months this robbery with violence which is now taking place by the Minister of Health and his colleagues. I hope the Minister of Health will try and justify this Clause when he rises to reply to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman told us in previous Debates that we could not refer so much to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who deals with things in a general way, and that it was left to the Minister in charge of this Bill to give detailed justification of the proposals contained in this Measure.
Notwithstanding the many hours and days that this Bill has been under review, there has been only a few excuses put forward and very few reasons to justify these proposals. I would like the Minister of Health to give us a detailed explanation, giving real reasons instead of excuses why this Bill has been sub-mated to the House. I think this imposition is grossly unfair and not. at all equitable. It is giving no credit to approved societies who have administered their funds in a very efficient manner, and it is tending to produce the opposite sort of administration if the Ministry are going to take advantage of this splendid work the approved societies have put in over a long period. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to consider the advisability of postponing this part of the worst Bill I have ever seen introduced during the past three or four years for
12 months in order to give the 15,000,000 members of the approved societies and the electors in West Ham and all parts of the country an opportunity of indicating really what they think about a Government which is proposing to rob friendly society funds because those in charge of them have seen fit to administer those funds in a very efficient manner.

Mr. PALING: There must be something very wrong about a Measure when the Government have to proceed with a Bill of this kind with such indecent haste. Everybody has been complaining about this business being rushed upon the House. It has been argued that less than three weeks notice has been given to the House of Commons that anything of this kind was going to be introduced, and the Bill was only in the hands of hon. Members a few days before we were called upon to discuss it. I submit that to bring in a Bill of this kind breaking a contract applying to 15,000,000 people and taking £2,800,000 a year from those people, in face of the fact that the Royal Commission recommended that certain money should he expended in certain directions for the benefit of those 15,000,000 people is positively indecent. This Amendment. is not asking too much in requesting that this Clause should be postponed for at least a year. I would like to call attention to the difference of treatment between the Report to which I have referred and the Report of the Coal Commission. We have a Report from the Commission which has dealt with this business and it is a voluminous one which has not been published very long, and which I should have thought the Minister of Health would have recommended and encouraged hon. Members to study carefully had he not. been so anxious to get. hold of the money. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman's duty to encourage hon. Members to study that Report. In spite of all these facts, we are asked to rush this Measure through the House in a few days.
Let me contrast what happened in the case of the Report of the Coal Commission. In that case, the Prime Minister himself encouraged and advised everybody in connection with that business not to come to a hasty decision but go very gently and slowly on with the business and digest all that is in the Report and not come to a hasty decision which might
be a wrong one. In this ease, the Government are following exactly the opposite course. If it was good for the Members of the House and the public and the Government to go slowly in regard to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Mining Industry, it was equally good for them to go slowly in regard to this particular Report which has just been issued dealing with this problem. In this case, there is a vast difference in the procedure. There was a great necessity for money, and it had to be got from some where. Here is a possibility of the Government getting the money, and, consequently, we are told that this Bill must go through before the introduction of the Budget. I submit that the Government have not made out a good case for getting this Measure through immediately. No less than 15,000,000 people have not had a reasonable chance of getting to know what these proposals arc going to cost them.
Everybody employed in an administrative position with regard to National Health Insurance schemes has been complaining of the rush in this matter, and they have not had time to come to a careful decision. I submit that it must take weeks and months for the 15,000,000 people affected to consider these proposals, to hold conferences with approved societies, and to enable those decisions to be sent in to the Ministry of Health and the Government. It takes an enormous time to come to a careful decision on a matter of this character affecting so vitally 15,000,000 people, and it is not asking too much that they should have at least a few months to consider the effect of these proposals. As a matter of fact, they have only had a few days. It does not seem to me to be the desire of the Government that these people should have a chance of considering these matters. I feel sure that if such an opportunity had been given to them the result would have been of such a character that the Government might have had to withdraw some of the Clauses of this Bill.
7.0 P.M.
This indecent haste leads one to assume that there might be something in that. I appeal to the Minister, in view of the fact that he has not given a single concession of any description yet, to postpone the operation of the Clause of the Bill for at least 12 months. In addition to giving the
Minister and the Government an idea of what the insured contributors think about the Bill, it would also give them time to consider what effect the financial Clauses of the Bill would have on the insurance scheme generally. I appeal to him to give this concession and to allow the matter to go over from 1927 to 1928 in order to give the 15,000,000 contributors, who are so vitally affected, an opportunity of saying what they think.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Although the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T Williams) seemed to think that I was not paying sufficient attention to the arguments which he was addressing, I can assure him and hon. Members opposite that I have listened very carefully to the whole course of this Debate, in the hope that I might hear some argument which might show me that those who are moving and supporting the Amendment clearly understood the effect of what it was that they were asking. Those who were present last night. and again this afternoon will agree with me that such arguments as have been used have been directed, not so much to the postponement. of the Clause, as to the withdrawal of the Clause altogether. We have been told over and over again that this is an unjust charge. in spite of the fact that the approved societies. through the Consultative Council. recognised the justice of their meeting out of their funds the cost of medical benefit, as well as other benefits. Notwithstanding that, hon. Members opposite have devoted themselves to requesting that we should withdraw the Clause altogether.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will you consult the Consultative Council now that Clause I has been passed? You will not answer that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the hon. Member will extend the same courtesy to me that I do towards him. I am going to try and devote my few observations to the actual Amendment before the Committee. Hon. Members opposite seem to think it is quite possible to postpone the application of Clause 2 for a year in order that approved societies may look round. Let me explain to the Committee what the position is with regard to the sum of 13s. mentioned in this Clause. Under
the main Act, there was provided 9s. 6d. plus 6d., making 10s., as the cost of medical benefit and administration expenses. Now that will be entirely insufficient. It was necessary in 1924 to make sonic arrangement under which the difference between this 10s. and the actual cost of medical benefit and administration expenses should be met. There were negotiations and discussions between the then Government and the approved societies. I understand that the approved societies were asked to meet this difference out of their benefit fund, and they refused. What did the Government then propose to do? Did they suggest that they should meet it out of the Exchequer Funds? Not at all. Finally, a way out was found by taking from the Unclaimed Stamps Sales Account certain moneys which were unused and utilising those moneys to make up the difference between the amount provided under the Act and the actual cost of the benefit and administration. That arrangement was embodied 'in an Act passed in 1924, called the Cost of Medical Benefit Act. Under that arrangement the full cost of these expenses has been met up to the present without making any charge on the Exchequer. Part of it. has been provided out of the benefit funds, and the other out of these unclaimed stamps.
What would be the effect of postponing the proposal in this Clause, that in future the whole of the cost should be charged on this Fund? The effect would be that there would be no statutory provision whatsoever for the difference between the cost and the 9s. 6d. and 6d. provided for in the Act of 1924. The only effect of accepting the Amendment would be that the whole scheme would come to an end, because there would he no source from which this difference could be found. That. is an impossible position, and it is quite clear that hon. Members had not realised what the position was when they put the Amendment down. If they have realised it, perhaps they will explain how they, propose to find the difference. Do bon. Members opposite think that we can continue to make up this difference out of the same Fund which has hitherto made it up? If so, I can tell them that that is not the case. The Fund will be exhausted by the end of the year. There is no more money in the Fund. We are in the
position, that, unless the Clause is passed in its present form, the whole scheme will be thrown into chaos and disorder, and we shall have to begin again to try and find some new arrangement. In those circumstances, I hope the Committee will see that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right lion. Gentleman give a reply to the specific question I asked?

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has been at some pains to tell us the terrible financial result of carrying the Amendment. If we carry our Amendment, we shall be in exactly the same position as we would have been had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer determined to raid these funds and had he not. produced this Bill. You may have to make some new arrangements at the end of the next financial year, but you would be in exactly the same position as if you had not introduced this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might have to bring in another kind of Bill to meet the situation, but not this particular Bill. This Bill is not brought in for the purpose of getting us over a difficulty, but for the purpose of finding money to enable the Chancellor to balance his Budget. There is no getting away from that, and it is no use the right hon. Gentleman attempting to camouflage it in that fashion. We have heard a good deal during the discussions as to this not being robbery and not being plunder, but that argument. bears the same relation to the one which the right hon. Gentleman has just used. What is the object of this Bill and of this Clause? It is to get money from somewhere which would have been need by somebody for some other purpose and to that extent it is perfectly certain that somebody is being robbed of something they would have had but for this Bill.
I was discussing this Bill with a friend outside who is not always so Parliamentary in his language as most of us in this House are obliged to be when we are speaking in public. He said he did not understand why there should be a lot of talk about this Bill, and he said it was a Pygmalion swindle. I use the word"Pygmalion,"because I must not use the other word. I think it expressed the position in a very able manner. Another
friend reminded me that there was in the old days in the East End of London a firm which we knew by the title "Skinnem and Bestem, Ltd." I should call the Government in relation to this Bill "Skinnem and Bestem, Unlimited." When I hear the speeches of hon. Members opposite, when they do wake up and deliver speeches, they remind me of the sort of excuse that is always made by the person who has been trying to swindle you when you suddenly discover what he is trying to do
The right hon. Gentleman has had the audacity, or effrontery, or courage to say again to-night what was said by his Parliamentary Secretary yesterday, that the Consultative Committee had approved this proposal. Of course it has, but the Consultative Committee, as he well knows, was asked to give its opinion on these different Clauses, and they denounced the operative Clause and refused to give any consideration to it at all. When that was brought up last week the right hon. Gentleman very blandly"smarmed"it over, but to-night he says that this is exactly what the societies have agreed to. If you take their advice when they agree with something you propose, why do you not take their advice when they disagree with something infinitely more important? It shows that this is just a war of words and an attempt to defend something that is perfectly indefensible. The right. 'hon. Gentleman says that we have not given any reasons why we should postpone the operation of this Clause. He seems to have overlooked the fact that every speaker for the postponement has argued that the Clause and, indeed, the whole Bill should be postponed in order that the people concerned may give their opinion on this proposition now that you have carried Clause 1.
I do not understand hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side not agreeing with us about this. I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here. He would remember, as others of my right hon. Friends will remember, that, during the discussion on the Home Rule Bill brought in by the Asquith Government, the whole argument put forward against that Bill was that the Government had no mandate for bringing it in. I would ask what mandate the Government have for bringing in this Bill. I read all their speeches that were
reported during the Election. I do that because I like to know the stupid things which they say, and which furnish arguments for us to use against them. I particularly read the very honest speeches of our very honest Prime Minister, especially those dealing with economy, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone on that. side., to stand up and say that in any single speech that they made, or in any document that they issued, they told the workers that they were going to plunder these services under the National Insurance Fund. They talked about economy here, there and everywhere, but never the kind of economy by plunder of which this Bill consists. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman, or someone on his behalf, ought. to stand up and tell us when it was that they got any mandate for bringing in a Measure of this kind.
I have very vivid recollections of sitting up night after night listening to the late Mr. Bonar Law, the present Lord Chancellor, and other leading lights that were on these benches in those days, protesting that the House had no right to deal with the fortunes of 4,000,000 people in Ireland without a distinct mandate for doing so. That may he a good or a had argument in regard to legislation, but the people who used that argument were the people whose successors now sit. on the opposite side of the House. Here you hove something dealing with money that is the property of 15.,000,000 people. It deals with the property of ex-soldiers and others for whom you all profess to have a great admiration, but you have not considered one bit what those people might have to say about this. The reason why we want the. operation of this Clause postponed is in order that public opinion outside may have, the fullest opportunity of expressing itself. I believe that every Member of the House has received to-day a document from an organisation representing something like 14,000,000 insured persons, protesting against this Bill being proceeded with in any way whatsoever. We have received that document, and that is our mandate for asking that this Clause shall be postponed.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants reasons. I would like his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to
stand up and answer these questions: Where is your mandate? Where did you tell the electors that you were going to economise by plundering the resources of the Health Insurance societies? Where did you get your authority to do any of the things contained in this Clause, or in any other part of the Bill? I say, further, that, if a vote were taken in any constituency in the country, I am perfectly certain that it would be an overwhelming vote against this proposal. It is not real economy at all; it is simply, in the name of economy, fleecing people who are very poor, whose pennies have built up this Fund, and who are not. able at this moment, and were not able at the General Election, to give any sort of answer on the subject. because it was not put to them. For these reasons we want the Clause postponed.

Major CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to various Members on this side, said, I think, three things, which perhaps he will allow me to paraphrase in three sentences. He said, first of all,"You who have moved this Amendment do not understand what it is that. you are asking." He said, secondly," The effect of this Amendment, if carried, will he that there will not be funds to carry out the services which are necessary after the conclusion of the present year. "He said, thirdly, "The arguments that have been addressed to the Committee are arguments, not for the postponement, hut for, if anything, the complete withdrawal of the proposal."That, I think, represents not unfairly what the right hon. Gentleman said.
If he will allow me, I would like to put to him, at any rate, one argument for postponing the Clause. It is also, of course, an argument for withdrawing but it is particularly an argument for postponement. The right hon. Gentleman, in his, as always, perfectly lucid style, has explained that the necessary increase in these charges which was made in 1924 has been borne by a fund which, as I gather from his statement, has accumulated and was available, but which has now been used, and which, therefore, will not he available in future. Then he went on to say that in that case, if this Amendment were accepted or carried, there would he no money with which to carry on these
services. How do we stand in face of that argument? Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman in this way. We on this side are opposing this Bill altogether, because we think it is a bad Bill. The Government are engaged in trying to find money because they are short, as many other people have been before. The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, is not going to accept the position that under a Conservative Government there must always be a shortage in the Exchequer. If he is not going to accept that position, then he must believe that the shortage of money, the financial stringency, is temporary and not permanent. I am sure he will accept that. One of the gravest complaints against this Bill—because I am sure that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his colleague would defend these proposals on their merits alone— —

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes!

Major CRAWFURD: Let me put it in another way. Were there no financial difficulty, this Bill, I think, would not be brought, forward

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Clause, which charges upon the societies the whole cost of medical benefit, must be differentiated from 'Clause 1, because this Clause follows directly the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Major CRAWFURD: I quite understand the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman draws, but I was for the moment—I hope I was not out of order—referring to the whole Bill, and I was saying that, if there had been no financial stringency, the Bill would not have been brought forward. One of our great objections to this Bill and to this Clause is that, in order to meet what is admittedly a temporary difficulty, the Government are making a permanent change which is going to affect adversely the poorest class of the population of the country. That is the reason why we object to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now says to us," That may be so, but this Clause follows the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and it was agreed to by the consultative committee."The right hon. Gentleman said that, but he does not for a moment assert that the consultative committee agreed to this Clause, having in view the fact that Clause 1 of the Bill has been passed.
I will let that pass, but what I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: This Clause does not merely withhold money. Clause 1 withholds money from the friendly societies which, up to now, the Government have been paying. It is not, if you like, to use that form of words, taking money away, but it is ceasing to give money which up to now you have given. The net result is the same, but it is stated in a different form. Clause 2, however, actually takes from the friendly societies money for purposes for which, up to now, they have not been supplying money. That is the difference between the two Clauses. The point I want to put—and it is a point not only for withdrawal but for postponement—is this: Will not the right hon. Gentleman at this stage make us some concession, and give some evidence that the Government have the interest of the friendly societies at heart? They are taking, by Clause 1, £2,800,000 a year—as I have said, as a permanent measure to meet a temporary difficulty. Will they not postpone the operation of this Clause? If, at the end of this year, they find their difficulty was indeed temporary, they can make to the friendly societies this concession of £120,000 a year, for which we are now asking, as some kind of offset against the £2,800,000 which they are taking by Clause 1. It is a very small concession to make, and I plead for it on that ground, and also on the ground which has been urged by the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Paling). I think that what ho said with regard to the coal industry, the coal crisis and the Coal Commission was very true. The Prime Minister pleaded for delay so that people might understand what was going to be done. If this Clause be postponed, the country, at any rate, will have an opportunity of realising what the Government are doing. On these two grounds I venture to urge the right hon. Gentleman, even now, to see his way to meet us on this Amendment,.

Mr. BECKETT: The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, asked us for arguments in favour of this Amendment which we are pressing. I think, if I may say so with all respect to him, that the best argument for the Amendment came from his own lips in the very short reply that he vouchsafed to us. Those of us who have sat here while the right hon. Gentleman has
carried through very ably a number of difficult Bills in Committee, know that, if there is half an inch of argument to be found anywhere in favour of his own side, he can safely be trusted to make the very best of that half-inch, and, when in this case he fails so lamentably to do anything but indulge in what I say, again with all respect, was sheer political sophistry, it is a very strong argument on our behalf. He said in his reply, and his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary has by various facial gestures emphasised that fact while the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) was speaking, that there is no need for further time for the friendly societies to consider this Clause, because they have already agreed to it. I will give way at once if either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to put this matter more clearly to us, but do we understand that the approved societies, who are concerned in this Measure, have agreed that, Clause 1 having become a definite part of the administration, they are prepared unhesitatingly to accept Clause 2 as well? Would it not he stating the case more accurately to say that the friendly societies took the line that they had no very serious object ion to Clause 2, but that it was Clause 1 which aroused their fears to a very great extent, and that Clause 2 only becomes objectionable in the administration when it is allied to the very unfair methods proposed in Clause 1?
The approved societies, representing, as has been said before, 15,000,000 very small people in the financial sense, have not had time to investigate, to examine, or to express the final verdict of their electorate upon this matter. Only this morning we received the following communication from a number of friendly societies which I am sure Members all over the House will recognise are interested in this Clause. A conference wad held yesterday representing the following associations of approved societies. The National Conference of Friendly Societies. the Association of Approved Societies, the Joint Committee of Approved Societies, the National Union for Insurance, the National Federation of Rural Approved Societies, the National Federation of Employés Approved Societies, the General Federation of Trade Unions, the National Association of Trade Union
Approved Societies, the National Conference of Industrial Assurance Approved Societies. I am sure everyone will agree that that is a very representative and influential conference. They write to us and say:
On behalf of the 14,000,000 insured persons represented by this Conference we tender our most hearty and sincere thanks for the great service which you and your party rendered during the all-night sitting on 31st March and 1st April, and earnestly hope that you will continue your valuable efforts on behalf of the compulsorily insured person so as to prevent what otherwise will be not only a breach of Parliament's undertaking, but a great injustice to the insured.
That is not an opinion voiced by Members of the Labour party or of the Liberal party. It is an opinion voiced by men of all parties, and people who are not associated with any party but are working to the best of their ability for the improved efficiency of our State insurance services. It is their opinion, and they want an opportunity to voice it.
We ask the right hon. Gentleman to give more serious consideration to this Amendment than he has done yet. I know his lot is a difficult. one during the Committee stage of the Bill. He has to rush it through without consideration, and without deference to the feeling in all parties in the country, in order that the Chancellor may have a beanfeast on the 26th of this month. But in spite of that fact I would ask him—because his conciseness prevents him weaving a web of distortion round the actual facts in the. way his distinguished colleague does—to stand up for the people he represents against the machinations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not only one party, not only one section of opinion, that wants this Clause postponed and the Bill given further consideration. it has been perfectly obvious during the Debates on this Bill that, except for the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and one or two others, no one was so mean as to do the Minister of Health credit on this Bill. Even half of his own party have carefully abstained from allowing themselves to become too closely connected with the Clause. It has been said the Prime Minister—and honour to him for it—is a very good House of Commons man, and he is remarkably often in his place considering the duties
he has to fulfil. He has been conspicuously absent during the discussion of this Bill and this Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the postponement. of the Clause.

Mr. BECKETT: I thought if I could suggest that the Prime Minister was not in a desperate haste to get it through it might. weigh with the Minister of Health and persuade him to lend a more gracious ear to our Amendment. There cannot be this tremendous and indecent and improper haste in getting it through. It is bad enough to get, elected on all sorts of red letters and red herrings, without coming here and perpetrating a deliberate fraud on great masses of people, some of whom you persuaded to vote for you at the last Election. It is going to do you harm not only with your political opponents, who would not support you any way, but with, great numbers of people who have been, unfortunately for them. your political friends in the past. The Parliamentary Secretary, whom we have so generously amused for several days, will no doubt persuade some of his friends, if he does not feel equal to it himself, to give us some serious suggestion as to why we should not at any rate, although we are a minority, go into the Division Lobby and show the people of the country that although the House of Commons robbed them it is not with the consent of the minority party here.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I feel sure the House has listened with great interest to the several arguments used in favour of the postponement of the Clause; and I wish to add a word or two in an endeavour to convince the Minister that we are really in earnest in our proposal. I am under the impression that Members of the Government are in a much better mood now than they were last night, and I shall not be a bit surprised to learn later that the right hon. Gentleman is quite willing, after the arguments he has heard, to give way on what is after all a comparatively small point. The history of this Clause is a very interesting one, and I shall deduce a few reasons why it should be postponed for at least a year beyond the date mentioned in the Clause itself. In the first place, there is no real need to hurry at all. Whatever necessity there may have been for passing Clause 1, that. necessity does not affect Clause 2 at all.
The history of medical benefit, the payment to panel doctors, and the cost of drugs and so forth is, as I said, a very interesting one. At the end of 1923 a new agreement had to be made between the Government and the doctors, and it was found then that it would be impossible apparently to pass a Measure which would make medical benefit provisions under the insurance Act a permanency. A short Act was therefore passed, called, I believe, the Medical Benefit Act, 1924, which provided that sums left in what is termed the Unclaimed Stamps Account should be used for the purpose of meeting the deficiency for the years 1924 and 1925.
There is one point in this connection that I very much desire information upon. If the right hon. Gentleman can help me, I feel sure he will, at the same time, be helping the administrators of approved societies. I have read very carefully all the documents that concern this Economy Bill, and I have failed to find out yet what was the actual sum left in this Miscellaneous and Unclaimed Stamps Account from which payments have been made towards medical benefit for the years 1924 and 1925. In fact, I have never seen yet how much money there was actually in the account at the beginning, and how much money is left now at the end of those two years. The answer to that question would he very important and affects the Amendment we are now proposing. For illustration, supposing the cost of medical benefit for those two years was £10,000,000 and there was a sum of £12,000,000 in this Central Fund—the details of which, by the way, are kept very secret. for my purpose, I have never been able to get any information at all which satisfies me as to the actual amount available for this purpose in the past. Surely if only £10,000,000 has been paid from the Fund for 1924 and 1925, there will be a balance of £2,000,000 left for 1926 and, in addition to that, if balances accrued to the Fund in the past, they will still accrue, and I want to know what is going to become of those prospective balances.
Let me carry my case further. Employers buy stamps for National Health Insurance purposes in bulk from the Post Office, and the revenue front the sale of stamps goes to the funds of the approved societies or to the general
pool under the management of the Treasury and the Ministry of Health. What is going to happen under this Clause to those sums of money which fall to the general pool in what is termed the Unclaimed Stamps Account?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Clause 4.

Mr. DAVIES: I have read the Bill very carefully and it would help us very much if the hon. Gentleman would enlighten us a little more on the subject. There is one point I desire to combat as fiercely as a Welshman can. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health have contended that the Royal Commission, and the Consultative Council of the Ministry of Health, and in fact all the approved societies, support the Government in regard to Clause 2. Let me analyse. that contention. I agree at once that the approved societies are not unwilling at all for all the cost of medical benefit to fall upon the funds of approved societies. I agree, too, that the majority of the Consultative Council have declared in that way. I agree also that the Royal Commission has declared in that way. But what I protest against is that it is assumed that because all these bodies have agreed to the principle they have also agreed to a reduction in the State grant towards medical benefit. The right hon. Gentleman's interjection a moment or two ago gave the implication that all these bodies were favourable to Clause 2; but he forgot to mention that the principle of Clause 2 stood then on its own, without being connected by a reduction of State grant in Clause 1. Let us make that a, little clearer still. When the Royal Commission decided in favour of all the medical benefit charges falling on the funds of approved societies they had no notion of this Economy Bill. As a matter of fact, the Government have taken no heed at all of the Royal Commission's Report, except in respect of the points that suit them for the purposes of this Bill.
I am delighted to see at long last the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. The two hon. Gentlemen who have been holding the fort so far are feeling a little said, I am sure. The right hon. Gentleman came in last evening. but only
remained, strange enough. so long as we discussed the bankruptcy proposals of his Economy Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is heading right away to political bankruptcy himself, as he will find out to his regret later. Just to show that we are right in our contention on this subject, I want to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health recently issued a notice to the Press. I do not know why he did so. I found it in the "Yorkshire Evening Post," and apparently it has been sent to a Press Association so that all the newspapers of the country should do the political work for the Government. The hon. Gentleman has brought a storm en his head in consequence. The hon. Gentleman, in issuing this Press notice, touches upon what is fundamental so far as we are concerned. I understand that a deputation waited upon the Minister of Health yesterday in consequence. I have been favoured with an important document which I venture to suggest touches upon the very Amendment we are now moving in the House. The names attached to this document I have just received are the names of gentlemen who are not persons administering trade union approved societies nor friendly societies; they are gentlemen; I feel sure I am right in saying, a large proportion of whom are prominent members of the Conservative party, and in spite of their politics they criticisc the action of the Conservatve Government. This is what they say:
Our attention has been called to the statement issued to the Press on the:3rd instant by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health regarding the effect upon the finances of approved societies of the provisions in Clauses 1 to 7 of the Economy Bill.
I would like the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to listen to this, because he is condemned on this occasion by his own friends:
The statement, dealing as it does with a very intricate subject, is so misleading"—
I am not sure that there will not be a change in Government after this; at any rate there ought to be—
that, as actuaries interested in approved society work, we feel it incumbent upon us to record our dissent from the conclusions arrived at.
These conclusions are the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman himself, possibly in conjunction with the Minister of
Health, issued to the Press. It would be very interesting to know why the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to issue to the whole Press of this country a very important statement of that kind on behalf of the Government while the Minister of Health, so far as I know, was at home at the time. I have been in a Government myself, and I do not know whether it is etiquette for the Parliamentary Secretary to issue a first-class political document when his chief is probably unaware that he is doing so. He has probably no reply to make to that. They both look like the orphans of the storm on that bench, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is becoming at last very interested in all we are saying on this subject.
We propose this Amendment in order to postpone the coming into operation of Clause 2 by 12 months beyond the date which is stated in the Clause itself. I want to carry the argument a little further, because the approved societies by this postponement would undoubtedly gain a considerable sum of money. Let us reduce it to detail and see what it means. If Clause 2 be carried as it stands the approved societies during the year 1927, on medical benefit account alone, will lose a considerable sum of money, and the purport of our Amendment is that if the approved societies are to lose any money at all they shall not lose it till 1928. The approved societies are valued quinquennially. The first quinquennial period was 1912 to 1918; from 1918 to 1922 was the second quinquennial period for some of the approved societies, who have not yet received the results of the valuation. The third quinquennial period will end in respect to some of the societies in 1927. Surely it is quite a fair and reasonable suggestion we are making, that if new burdens are to be put on approved societies in respect to medical benefit, the new charges shall not begin until the commencement of the fourth valuation period. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have now had a chance of chatting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I remember, when the Widows' Pension Bill was before the House, the Minister

of Health was gracious enough to accept very important Amendments which were submitted to him. One or two of those Amendments which were accepted were in respect to dates. In this connection, we venture to ask the Committee to pass this Amendment.

The Government have failed to appreciate one very important factor in the situation. They complain that the charges upon the Treasury are increasing year by year, and because the charges are increasing they propose to cut them down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, of course, the culprit behind the whole business, I am glad he is here to listen to the kind remarks we are making about him. We have no chance of convincing him. No reason will avail with him, no argument will turn him from the error of his ways; but we are doing our duty on this side of the House to the 15,000,000 insured persons of this country by trying to have this Clause postponed. I have no hesitation in saying, as I have already declared, that whatever the opinions of hon. Gentlemen may be on that side of the House in regard to the operation of this Clause now, they will find out later on, when this Clause begins to operate on the funds of the approved societies, that they will suffer from the political reaction that will set in.

The last point I wish to make is this. There is a very real chance, in fact there is a probability, that if this Clause is postponed, as we suggest it should be, there will be a General Election in the intervening period, and, if we get a General Election in that period, I feel satisfied that hon. Gentlemen who are now sitting on the other side of the. House trying to plunder the funds of approved societies will instead be sitting in an ignominious position on this side of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put,"That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 139.

Division No. 136.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Barbour, George (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Astor, Viscountess
Balniel, Lord


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gretton, Colonel John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Philipson, Mabel


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, William


Benn, Sir A. S. {Plymouth, Drake)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Bethel, A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raine, W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remnant, Sir James


Brass, Captain W.
Harland, A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rice, sir Frederick


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ta'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hawke, John Anthony
Ruggles-Brise, Major E, A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rye, F. G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward
Homan, C. W. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavs D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hopkinson, sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scott, sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Chadwick, sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm. W.)
Hudson, U.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurst, Gerald B.
Skelton, A. N.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine.C.)


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Lieut. Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jacob, A. E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden,E.)


Couper, J. B.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Hon. U. f. G. (Westm'eland)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Croit, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Storry-Deans, R.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey. Gainsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stott, Lieut-Colonel W. H.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Loder, J. de V.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lougher, L.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. H.
Thomson, F C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Try on, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Duckworth, John
McNeil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Waddington, R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major p. B.
Wheter, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Elveden, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. [Cornwall, Northern)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fermoy, Lord
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, w. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Moused, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wise. Sir Fredric


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
withers, John James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nalt, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, E. (Chest"r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Neville, R. J.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Goff, Sir Park
Nuttall, Ellis
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hen. Sir L.


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Grace, John
Penny, Frederick George
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Grant, J. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perring, Sir William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Cope and Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bair, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Batey, Joseph




Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charies


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, David (Montgomery}
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wiggins, William Martin


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Guest, Dr. L, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John



Henderson, Right Hon. A [...]urnley)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.


Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Hirst, W (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Question put accordingly,"that the word 'twenty-seven' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244: Noes, 144.

It being after a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 83 of principal Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11 0 P.M.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Ordinarily in the discussion that the Clause stand part, one is forced to recognise that in the main at least the arguments advanced from either side are understood and appreciated by the Committee as a whole. One can generally conclude that when the vote is taken on the issue that is put from the Chair, every Member in the Committee is not only in a position to vote, but votes with a full knowledge of the facts and, having heard everything that can be said against it, decides accordingly. But I am bound to draw attention to the extraordinary position of hon. Members opposite who will be voting sometime in the morning on this particular Clause. As far as any contribution from their side is concerned, there is not a Member who will be able to go into the lobby and say "I voted on this particular matter because of a contribution from any one of my colleagues." For reasons that I will explain later, that privilege, that opportunity, and, indeed, that necessary Parliamentary procedure, has been denied them by the Government. That in itself would be a difficult situation; that in itself would be something that we would be entitled to complain about, and in the ordinary way I would take up this attitude. Everything that can be said about this Clause ought to have been said already. But it must be remembered that the Government have got their second team on to-night, and my difficulty is that if I were sure that last night's team was here to-night, there would be no need for me to speak. But this is the extraordinary difficulty in which I find myself. I have got to repeat to-night—[Interruption,.] Let me put it this way. I am going to repeat to-night the arguments that could not reach the heads of the hon. Members last night. It is perfectly true that if we had relied upon argument, if our case had been listened to, and if hon. Members opposite had been given an opportunity to speak last night and every previous night that we have discussed this Clause, then my task at this moment would not be nearly so difficult as it is. But unfortunately, those to whom I have been talking for hours previously on this Clause have already been sent home.
I said earlier that it was the second "team" that had arrived. but when I see
the noble lady from Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) turn up at this stage of the night, I can only conclude that there is a certain part of the first "team'' ordered back. Therefore, I am quite sure that I shall get the sympathy of those on this side, and they will not only bear with me but appreciate my difficulty and my reluctance. There should be no Member opposite who could do other than sympathise with a Member on this side having to re-state something about which he thought he had already convinced other people. I felt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—yes, but people are saying "hear, hear" who never heard a word of it. My difficulty is to try to persuade them and tell them how I utterly failed to persuade people less intelligent than they. I must act on the assumption that the second team will be at least as docile and intelligent as those whom we have already failed to convert.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: All the same people.

Mr. THOMAS: I immediately get an interruption. "All the same people." What you really mean is "All the same colour." I refuse to believe that all the intelligent people have gone. I am not going to treat the Committee with disrespect. When the hon. Baronet, the Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. KinlochCooke) reminds me that he is present, part of my case is going to show that when he was the Member for Plymouth— —

Viscountess ASTOR: Never Plymouth.

Mr. THOMAS: —for Devonport. Although you are both on that side, the disparity between you is so great that neither of you would associate with the other.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: On a point of Order. May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will approach the subject of Clause 2?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I considered that the right hon. Gentleman was in the act of giving his preface to it.

Mr. THOMAS: If I tried to improve on your definition, I should fail and I accept it unhesitatingly, but I accept it because you, Sir, like myself, are a victim of this unfortunate method that compels you to listen to what I have already said.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want to listen to it again.

Mr. THOMAS: If you had a majority decision I would save you that because I am quite sure that I should be safe, but, unfortunately I have got to rely on those people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I am not, treating the Committee with disrespect, I am giving a reason why the Government with their majority, instead of allowing their supporters to take part in the Debate, deliberately set themselves out to beat us down by numbers, and not by argument. We are not going to have it. It is not discourteous to the Chair to give a legitimate reason why I am departing from the ordinary procedure. When the vote is taken on this Clause the Committee will vote on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We have repeatedly stated—we may have been wrong—that not only were the Government taking the wrong course, and taking an unwise course in their own interest, but that they were robbing people. We have emphasised that statement and rubbed it in. We have said that the Government must be uncomfortable and their supporters disturbed, and that statement has been met by repeated denials from the other side. I want to show what an extraordinary situation has been created by this Clause. The Government have what is known as a publicity department. If any supporter of the Government feels any difficulty in being able to explain to his constituents what a particular Clause or Act means, the Government come to the rescue through the Publicity Department.

Mr. BALFOUR: God forbid !

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) says that that may be true, but he exclaims, "God forbid," that they should come to his rescue. Therefore I leave the lion Member out, because he requires no assistance. That does not alter the fact that the Government have a Publicity Department. It functions when there is a General Election and when letters—imaginary letters—have to be published. We can only conclude that the Government 13 assume that a General Election is imminent, and that serious consequences will arise from this Clause. The Publicity Department has already been on the job. The department
adopts the usual method of introducing an imaginary constituent. They issue a pamphlet, in which they say that a constituent having asked a Member whether it is true what the Opposition say, they desire to supply to the Member, lest he should not be intelligent enough to give an answer, the answer that they thought he ought to give. The Publicity Department has already been on the job. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is it from Eccleston Square?"]Oh, no ! We do not issue it until we want to convert other people. This is issued in order that the hon. Member for East Cardiff, if asked by any of his constituents—I see he is not in the first team—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I am in the first team, and I heard all he had to say last night.

Mr. THOMAS: I apologise and congratulate him on his fidelity to duty. I can only conclude that he has heard from Cardiff and that he is going to reverse his decision. This Publicity Department, has sent out to each member a letter giving them instructions how they are to answer particular questions. This is what this Publicity Department says:
The Opposition alleges that the Clause is directly contrary to the recommendation of the recent Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, that there should be no reduction in the State grant.
In order that no two Members shall give two different answers, in order that there should be no confusion in the solidarity of the other side, it is suggested that this should be the answer:
The Royal Commission did not make any such recommendation. They found that after making certain adjustments as regards assumed rates of interest and expectation of sickness, as recommended by the Advisory Committee, there would he a margin in the present weekly contributions over and above the sum required to meet the cost of the present statutory benefits. The Commission recommended that as the first call on this margin there should be placed on the funds of the approved societies the liability for the balance of the cost of medical benefits, which has been met hitherto for temporary sources, such as the proceeds of unclaimed health insurance payments. This recommendation of the Commission was agreed to by the Comsultative Council of the Approved Societies, and has been embodied in Clause 2 of the Bill. As to the balance of the margin amounting to about £2,250,000 a year, the Commission pointed out in their report that there remains the possibility of using the margin,
or part of it, to reduce the charge on the State. They continue "We do not regard it as falling within our province to consider whether such a reduction should be made. We have been impressed by the extent to which the original condition under which the State grant was fixed has been altered by subsequent events. The Government on examining the position decided that there was full justification for reducing the State contribution; and in the circumstances to which the Commission call attention, this was a proper purpose for which the margin should be applied '.
I want to draw attention to the unfairness of that stereotyped answer. I have already made some comment on the feeling on the Government side and their anxiety when, at this stage of the Session on one Bill, they are compelled to put their Publicity Department on the job. Is there any Member opposite who would suggest that that statement which I have read is the basis of our opposition to the Bill? The statement is the most mean and contemptible travesty of the facts. Our objection to the Royal Commission was not on this ground at all Our complaint was that we on this side, having appointed a Royal Commission, and a promise having been given to the Commission that due regard would be paid to its recommendations, the present Government came along and prevented the House of Commons discussing the recommendations of the Commission. That is our only complaint about the Royal Commission. But that is not our ground of objection to this Clause; it is only a part of the ground. Our objection to this Clause is that it is a breach of contract, that it is a violation of every pledge and promise made to the insured persons, that this Government is taking the meanest opportunity in the name of economy to break a contract, and is robbing people of their just due.
Curiously enough, the Government were not quite sure that their Publicity Department would reach all the Press. So they put the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on the job. Imagine this curious situation: We had finished an all-night sitting without a solitary Government supporter answering us. Hon. Members opposite were gagged, or they refused to take part in the Debate; they acted merely as machines and trotted into the Lobbies. We finished that sitting about nine o'clock in the morning. We would have been
content to have allowed the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT to prove what took place. We would have been content to have said, "Let the people judge by the Debate." What was the position of the Government? They had already put the Publicity Department to work; they had started the printing machines; they had already manufactured imaginary answers to an imaginary constituent. But they were not quite sure of their ground even then. They put the Parliamentary Secretary on the job. He said, "While my chief is spending his holiday I must show myself; I must give some malice to my disgruntled supporters." So he called together the Press agencies, after the all-night sitting, and reported what had taken place. A new impression was created.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: With the greatest respect, Sir, it has. I submit it is not only relevant, but necessary to bring out the point. We discussed the Committee stage of this Clause all night, and next morning the Minister, who had not answered our case during the night, called together the reporters of the Press, and issued a statement which I am going to read.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The sitting to which the right lion. Gentleman refers was concerned with Clause 1 and not Clause 2.

Mr. THOMAS: That, Sir, is perfectly true hut unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the discussion of Clause 1 we gave the Government such a hammering that he anticipated difficulties on Clause 2 and it was on Clause 2 that he gave the interview. Whoever else may attempt to do so, he will not deny that he gave the interview on Clause 2. At all events he called this conference of Press reporters, and I can only conclude that his object in doing so was to try to remove the damage that had been done by the Parliamentary Debate showing the effect of Clause 2. Is it not significant—would it not strike you, Sir, as peculiar—that with a majority such as the Government possess, overwhelming in numbers, in brains and in beauty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw]—and in everything except
eloquence expressed, that such a course should be adopted. With all these advantages, with all these qualifications behind them—[An HON. MEMBER: "The beauty is not behind them, is it?"]—I am quite impartial, you can have it either way—as I say, with all these advantages they put the Publicity Department to work, having manufactured imaginary constituents and provided all the arguments. Still the hon. Gentleman said that was not sufficient and he decided that he must be "on the job" —at a peculiar time, too, because it will be remembered that one of the pleas made on this side was that the Easter Conferences should have an opportunity of considering the matter. That was the plea which we made and on which we divided, but the hon. Gentleman knew the danger, and prior to the Easter Conferences he decided that he must create some impression, and so he gave his views on the situation. Having given his views, I put it to the Committee that hon. Members opposite might say that our views are prejudiced owing to the keen feeling on the subject that we have expressed, but I am going to bring in to support my case his own supporters. This statement was examined, not only by impartial, but by some of the most distinguished actuaries in this country, not supporters of ours, not members of our party, but members of his party, his friends, his advisers, and, as I think he will admit, certainly authorities on the National Health Insurance Act. The statement of the hon. Gentleman was examined by some gentlemen whose views I will give first, and whose names I will give afterwards, but here let me state, so that there need be no misapprehension, that the quotation I am about to give is not new to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, because I think ho will agree that he has already received a document to this effect.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Has it anything to do with Clause 2?

Mr. THOMAS: Every bit of it. This is the considered judgment, not only of politicians, but of people whose job it is to view, purely from an actuarial standpoint, the effect of the Government's proposals. This is what they say, and they have addressed it, not to me nor to my
hon. and right hon. Friends, but to the Minister of Health:
Sir.—Our attention has been called to. the statement issued to the Press on the 3rd by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health regarding the effect upon the finances of approved societies of the provisions of Clauses 1 to 7 of the Economy Bill"—
And that is the answer to the right. hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, because he was in some doubt as to whether it had anything to do with Clause 2; Clause 2 is between Clauses 1 and 7—
The statement, dealing, as it does, with very intricate subject, is so misleading"—
That is to say, the statement issued by a responsible Member of the Government, one of the Ministers responsible, is so misleading—
that we, actuaries interested in approved society work, feel it incumbent upon us to record our dissent from the conclusions arrived at."—
The actuaries responsible, not politicians, not party men, feel it incumbent upon them to record their dissent from the press interview given by the hon. Gentle-man—
The real point at issue is the proposed reduction of the State's contribution to National Health Insurance by a sum of about £2,800,000 per annum, and the reference in the statement to the expenditure by the Government on other services, such as housing, maternity, and child welfare, is not relevant to the issue.
That is to say, all the talk that we had on those subjects by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend was humbug—
There can he no question that the withdrawal of this money from the approved societies is a breach of a Statutory undertaking.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The document from which the right hon. Gentleman is reading has nothing to do with Clause 2.

Mr. THOMAS: With the greatest respect, I want to submit to you—and I challenge contradiction — that the £2,800,000 with which I am dealing is dealt with in Clause 2. If you rule that it is not in Clause 2, I will withdraw at once, hut I do not think Members opposite will suggest that it is not in Clause 2. Surely I am not only entitled to point it out, but to draw attention— —

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that Clause 2 did not withdraw any Government grant.

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly it does not withdraw Government grants; our complaint is that it is taking away Government grants. That is exactly our point. I am dealing exclusively at the moment with a peculiar situation, and I am trying to be as relevant as I can he. I am dealing with the statement by the hon. Gentleman on this Clause. Then it goes on to say:
In support of this, it is only necessary to refer to Section 4 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, which makes it clear that there are three contributing parties, and sets forth definitely the State's contribution as to two-ninths"—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman has been long enough a member of this House to know what is in Order, and what is not. I must ask him to keep strictly to Clause 2.

Mr. THOMAS: Whatever differences I may have with the Government, however keenly I may feel that they are mistaken in their procedure, and whatever strong language I may use in complaint of their extraordinary methods in dealing with this matter, nothing would tempt me to trespass on your ruling or to take advantage of it. But I do respectfully point out—and I want to put this quite seriously—that it may appear we are adopting an extraordinary form of obstruction. That is perfectly true. We do not disguise that; we do not even apologise for it. What is more, I am not going to apologise for it. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of running foul of the ruling of the Chair, hut we may as well make it perfectly clear that we feel that this is such an extraordinary proposal and such a travesty of Parliamentary procedure, that there is no other course open to us. You were present, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, during the all-night sitting. You heard the discussion which took place on Clause 1 and Clause 2, and I have no doubt that but for the fact that you were in the Chair you would have felt just as surprised as we did when you heard a Minister go the length of calling on the Press for his defence. I have endeavoured to keep to the point, but here I am dealing not with politicians, but with actuaries. These actuaries say that with regard to the estimated surplus it is not clear as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary is speaking of
the whole surplus or the disposal of the surplus when he said that not a penny would be touched for economy purposes, but would be fully available for the insured persons of the country. They further state that if this refers to a disposal of the surplus, then there is an important discrepancy between that statement and the statement made by the Minister of Health, who said that the Bill does not touch surpluses.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. I submit that this argument has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions that his remarks on this point are not in order on this, particular Clause. I ask him now to keep in Order, and to carry out my ruling.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish to raise a point of Order. This is really a very important question because the ruling which you have just given, Captain Fitzroy, would limit the discussion, and I think my right hon. Friend should be allowed to call attention to this report of the actuaries. This report has been sent to the Minister of Health, and it does bear upon Clause 2 very directly. It is signed by most important experts, and it states that the effects are cumulative. It points out that the Economy Bill will impose an annual charge on these societies of about £4,700,000. They also point out that the loss is £2,800,000 in respect of the reduced State Grant, and £1,900,000, exclusive of the State Grant, the extra cost of medical benefit.
They point out that the operation of these two Clauses together is cumulative, that it takes £4,700,000 and that the surpluses will not bear the two. The whole document is based on the cumulative effect of the two Clauses, and unless we are in a position to point it out I think it would make Parliamentary discussion of this matter absolutely inoperative. I submit that it is really germane and that it would be almost impossible to point out the effect of Clause 2 unless the cumulative effect of the two clauses at this stage was also pointed out.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I say I should not in the least have objected if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had
been discussing the particular passages in the report to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has alluded. What I objected to was that he was reading out at great length and commenting on passages in the report which did not bear directly on the Clause.

Mr. THOMAS: On this point of Order, what would either you, Mr. Chairman, or the Government, have said, if, taking this document, which, I explained, was a document sent to the Minister in answer to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, I had merely read extracts? It was because I was anxious to be fair, and did not want to allow anyone to say I was partial and was picking and choosing, that I deliberately was reading the whole document. I said in my preface that I intended to show the conection between the two. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he would not object, I would respectfully paint out to you, Mr. Chairman, that it would have been fair that I should read the whole and not extracts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I naturally do not want to exclude anything which is germane to the subject under discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman is confining himself to reading extracts from the Report relating to this Clause, he would be in order—if he confines himself to that.

Mr. THOMAS: You will appreciate the difficulty. I was making some connection between the two, but for the purpose of saving time I will skip over for a moment, and draw attention to what the Commission themselves say. I am now quoting from what the actuaries say, and drawing attention to what the Commission themselves say on this very important point. This is what they say:
Their causes are far from clear to us, and their persistence seriously complicates the problem referred to us. We are required, in fact, to find the proper contributions for the sickness and disablement claims of women at a time when (a) the sickness claims of unmarried women…"—
and here let me say there are two lady Members of this House. While I never draw any distinction between any Members of the House, I am quite sure both lady Members cannot have read this, or they would be very disturbed because of the
importance of this question for their own sex, and I want them especially to hear this. It goes on:
the sickness claims of married women at the ages of chief importance are about 40 per cent, higher than the corresponding claims of men, and the disparity is increasing, (b) the sickness claims of married women arc double the corresponding claims of unmarried women and the disparity is also increasing, and (c) the disablement claims for both unmarried and married women are double the corresponding claims of men.
Then they go on to say:
it is clear that we"—
that is the Commission"—
cannot come to any final decision. The utmost we can do is to recommend for the time being a basis whichprimâ facieappears to make an adequate provision.
I am dealing here with the Commission, and this is what they go on to show—that it is impossible to differentiate between Clauses I and 2, because the one works into the other, and what is taken in the one naturally has its cumulative effect on the other. This is what they say in answer to the hon. Gentleman:
The Economy Bill will impose an annual charge on societies of about £4,700,000 per annum, being £2,800,000 in respect of the reduced State grant, and £1,900,000 (exclusive of the State grant) the extra cost of medical benefit.
Medical benefit is Clause 2 of the Bill. We are dealing with medical benefit, and you cannot separate the one from the other. They go on:—
In this connection"—
that is, in connection with the medical benefit—
we would refer you to the statement of the Departmental Actuarial Committee, of which the Government Actuary was the Chairman (paragraph 31 on page 345 of the Report of the Royal Commission).
Let the Committee observe that what I am now going to quote is the view of the Government Actuary—not a supporter of any party, but the Government Actuary himself. This is what he says:—
Expenditure at the rate…indicated would amount in total to about £4,500,000 a year (inclusive of State grant)"—
that is, the State grant that is now being reduced—
and, in the course of a quinquennial period, after allowing for the set-off accruing from the reduction of the contributions applied to the service of reserve values, a
total charge (with interest) of about £15,000,000 would fail to be met from the funds of the approved Societies. For the greater part, this sum would be met out of resources that, under existing conditions, would emerge as surplus at the quinquennial valuations. We are, however, constrained to point out that the imposition of the new burden would result in increased deficiencies where deficiencies now exist, or in the creation of deficiency in certain cases, where on the present basis surplus would have appeared. As the valuation reports have shown, the societies vary widely in their financial position, and only the margins which have emerged on the present basis have protected a number of them, with in the aggregate a substantial membership, from falling into a state of deficiency. The further expenditure contemplated by our terms of reference necessarily involves the reduction of these margins, and this is bound to have adverse results upon the solvency of the weaker units. It is impossible to form any definite opinion as to the membership of the societies which the new burdens would place in deficiency, one of the difficulties of the position being that the numbers would grow as the surpluses hitherto carried forward in sub-normal cases became exhausted and the full force of the new charges had to be met without the possibility of assistance from this source. We are led to expect, after making the best estimate of which the case admits, that the effect of the new burdens would be to create eventually a condition of deficiency in societies representing about 10 per cent, of the whole insured population. This is a grave prospect.
12 M
This is a grave prospect, in the view of the Government Actuary. How does that square with the political Department's answer to its supporters? I want to know how it came about that, the Government Actuary having made this statement, the Government themselves allowed their Publicity Department to issue the statement that I have quoted. This is the conclusion of these actuaries:
In conclusion, we wish to say that we entirely concur in the opinion expressed by the Departmental Actuarial Committee as to the gravity of the prospect, which, moreover, is in our opinion accentuated by the fact that so substantial a portion of the margin ascertained is proposed to he used in a manner quite different from that contemplated.
That is signed, as I desire again to emphasize, not by politicians, not by members of our party, but it is signed first by Sir Joseph Burn, the President-elect of the Actuaries' Society, one of the most distinguished actuaries in this country, and the head of the great Prudential Society. No doubt he will feel it imcum-
bent upon him to take note of the Press statement of the hon. Gentleman, and to put his views upon it into writing. He is followed by seven others, all independent actuaries, all members of the Institute of Actuaries. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Read them !"] Sir Joseph Burn heads the list, and then come Mr. E. F. Spurgeon, Mr. Edward A. Rusher, Mr. Charles H. Ashley, Mr. Herbert H. Austin, Mr. J. Murray Laing, Mr. E. C. Farmer, and Mr. S. G. Leigh —all Fellows of the Institute of Actuaries, all men in responsible positions, all, I venture to say, members of any party but our own; but they all feel, as we feel, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has led his new party into a hole, and they undoubtedly feel that it is their duty to put, it on record that, whatever may be their political views, whatever views they may have upon the Government, they at least feel the moral obligation that they are trustees for these 15,000,000 people.
I hope I have not delayed the Committee too long. I feel so keenly that I am tempted to go on. I feel that I have already dealt miserably inadequately, and certainly not at the length I should have liked, with this important subject. May I again restate shortly the position? First, we shall be voting that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. When the record of the OFFICIAL REPORT is looked up, it will be found that the great bulk of those who constitute the majority never heard a word of the debate. It will be shown that some of those that did listen to the debate were so tied up with party loyalty and the influence of the Whips that they had to disregard their own consciences and their duty to their constituents. It will be shown that, while we shall be defeated, they have had to get out another pamphlet to explain the matter. We have pleaded with the Government, and they only say "No, no, no !"They are adamant; they definitely refuse us any concession. I am not going to ask them to make any concession. I refuse at this stage to ask them to give us anything. We have tried to save them, but they are hopeless.
If I were to make one request it would be this, that if the Government are so sure and feel that their political campaign, their Publicity Department, are so satisfactory that they can rely upon
the judgment and the impartiality and the sense of their supporters, why do not they put it to the test by taking off the Whips? Why do not they give their supporters a chance to go to the approved societies and say, "In spite of everything else, I was true to my pledge." No, they will not, because they are afraid of the situation; because they dread the consequences; because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has sampled every party and ruined most of them, has shown himself the dominant force. We shall go into the Lobby regretting the obstinate attitude of the Minister of Health, knowing that he is voting against his conscience, knowing that he at least knows something about it, and that he, unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would like to do the right thing by the approved societies. We shall go into the Lobby regretting his and his colleague's answer and actions, sorry for the supporters who, lamblike, are to follow him, but confident that when they get to their constituencies they will he making some other excuse than that used in the pamphlet. For all these, and many more reasons that my friends will be able to express, I feel that reluctantly, much as I would like to support the Government, much as T hate the idea of voting against them, and feel that I would like to help them, because they will not help themselves, there is no other course than to let them take the course that will be disastrous to them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise merely to ask one or two questions of the Minister of Health, and more particularly to raise a question with the Secretary for Scotland. My object is to question the Minister in charge with regard to Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. I would have thought that, on this Clause, we would have had present the Secretary for Scotland or the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health. I must confess that, in this matter, I have not attended to my duties as I might have done, but all day I have tried to find the exact meaning of Subsection (3) of Clause 2, and I have tried to find the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, who is always willing and able to give us any information on Scottish health questions. But I have not been able to locate him, and I want to ask for some explanation of this
Scottish question. I was going to put down an Amendment asking that this part of the Clause be struck out altogether, and then I was advised that it was of some advantage to Scotland. On the other hand, I have a communication from certain people in Glasgow stating that this is taking something from Scotland that we already have. One of the reasons why I did not put down an Amendment was that this might be of advantage to Scotland, and some English Members might have been tempted to go into the Division Lobby to take away what might have been an advantage to Scotland. I have not taken much part in the Debates on this Economy Bill, and it is only because this morning I received a letter from certain insurance people in Glasgow that I have raised this question. Here is a Scottish question being discussed, and I must frankly say that the Minister of Health, during the Widows' Pensions business, was extremely courteous in going into all questions and having Scottish officers present when Scottish questions were raised. But on this occasion that has not been done. I hope the Minister of Health will explain this subject to the Scottish Members, who have purposely waited for an explanation.

Sir K. WOOD: I will do my best to answer the question. If the hon. Member will look at Sub-clause 3, he will see that there is a special provision for Scotland which says;
(a) in addition to payments to he made under Sub-section (1) of this Section out of the sum applicable as provided by that Sub-section"—
That is, 13s.
there may be paid thereout any expenses of the Scottish Board of Health in cornice-Lion with the provision of a medical service for insured persons in such districts of Scotland…as may be determined by the Board to be necessitous, and references in the said Sub-section (1) as applied to Scotland to expenses incurred by the Board shall be construed as including the expenses aforesaid.
In that sum of 13s. there are two items which particularly affect the sparsely populated areas of Scotland. One might be called expenses for the mileage of doctors. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will remember that in the original negotiations with the doctors a very thorny question was raised in connection
with allowances for mileage where there were sparsely populated areas. This is particularly the case in Scotland. In allocating the 13s., inasmuch as in Scotland the drug bill is less than that particular item in this country, this Clause allows out of the 13s., a special assistance to be given to the doctors in particular areas in Scotland where an allowance is necessary and desirable on account of the sparsely populated character of the country. This is a special arrangement for remuneration over and above what would be given in this country, and the necessary adjustment is made to keep it within the 13s. As far as this Sub-clause is concerned it is put in at the request, I understand, of the Scottish Board of Health, in order that further arrangements may be made with the medical men there to meet the difficulties that may arise in sparsely populated areas.

Mr. THOMAS: However much we may disagree with the action of the Government, we always appreciate any effort to give information. We have very grave doubt about this Clause and what it means. The Parliamentary Secretary himself is not quite sure about it. Will he explain what is meant by the words he omitted
(other than the highlands and islands within the meaning of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913.)
We shall soon be voting on the question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill." My Scottish friends do not want to be accused of going into the Lobby and voting for something that is an injustice or something that they do not understand. Therefore could not we at this stage have a Scottish Law Office present? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has given an explanation as far as he was able to ascertain the facts, but he was not quite sure about them. Therefore, on a matter affecting Scotland and particularly in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is in some doubt.—

Sir K. WOOD: I endeavoured to answer seriously the question, and I hope the Committee will appreciate the reply I gave. It is, I believe, perfectly correct, and will no doubt be confirmed by other Members. In England the figure of 3d. is allowed, but in Scotland this amount
can be exceeded, and the arrangement thus made is continued in this Clause. With regard to the words
(other than the highlands and islands within the meaning of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913) as may be determined by the Board to be necessitous, and references in the said subsection (1) as applied to Scotland to expenses incurred by the Board shall be construed as including the expenses aforesaid;
—that is a special provision for the part of the country that is very sparsely populated. An Act is already in force which covers this part of the country and the present Clause only continues its operation.

Mr BUCHANAN: I do not know anything about this matter and I should like to be informed. If this is merely continuing a practice incorporated in other Acts, why is it necessary to include such a provision in an Economy Bill. But I should like to know the particular districts to which this applies. I understand that owing to the sparseness of the population a doctor would not be covered by the normal fee of 9s., as sometimes he has to travel 30 and 40 miles to visit one patient. It may take him the whole day. But, to what parts of Scotland does this apply, and if it is not economy, why put it in an Economy Bill?

Mr. STEPHEN: I share the doubts of my hon. Friend, and should like to know whether there has been any consultation with the Scottish Societies on this matter. In paragraph (b) it says:
the maximum sums as respects the administration expenses of insurance committees and the expenses of the Board shall he such sums as may respectively be prescribed.
I want to know prescribed by whom, by the Scottish Board of Health?

Sir K. WOOD: I will be glad to reply to these questions. The reason why the paragraph is included is that in a previous Sub-clause we made arrangements with regard to the limitation of medical benefits to a sum of 13s., and in order to meet the special case of Scotland and the difficulties which arise there, it is necessary to put to this paragraph. To my own knowledge there have been representations from Scotland as to the difficulties in these sparsely populated areas. With regard to what particular areas are
affected, the answer my hon. Friend will see is in the latter part of sub-section (3):
such areas as may be determined by the Board to ho necessitous.
With regard to the point as to (b)—
shall be such sums as may respectively be prescribed"—
—who prescribes that? The answer is, the Scottish Board of Health.

Mr. THOMAS: Again I am quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has done his best to explain, but the remarkable thing is that he has now rather suggested that this is a concession. When I look at the Clause, my reading of it is:
In addition to the payments to be made under Sub-section (1) of this Section out of the sum applicable as provided by that Subsection, there may be paid thereout any expenses of the Scottish Board of Health in connection with the provision of a medical service for insured persons in such districts.
I cannot reconcile that with some concession, and I still would like to see. some Member of the Scottish Office who will explain the situation.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like to add a word or two to what has been said with regard to the Highlands and those sparsely populated districts. My hon. Friend has explained quite fairly what took place in 1911. It was obvious that it was no use giving Cs.—afterwards by agreement it was, I think. 7s. 6d.—to doctors for a patient when you are dealing with a very sparsely-populated district like the Highlands, when the doctor might take a whole day to get to his patient, and sometimes might have to travel in conditions of very great peril to his life. Therefore, we had to make special arrangements for giving a sum of money to the doctors under the name of travelling expenses. I understand that here it is proposed that the 13s. which is to be inserted as a maximum in this Clause should be used, as far as the Highlands are concerned to increase that sum; but, in addition to that, there is something saved on the fact that Scottish doctors do not drug their patients as thoroughly as English doctors do. I think they deserve an extra fee for that. But I want to point out that this is not anything which the Government is giving.
It is important to understand that they are voting here the reserves of the friendly societies—the contributions made
—and that it leads the friendly society and trade union funds a step nearer bankruptcy. When they talk about boons to the Highlanders, they are just boons at the expense of the Highlanders themselves and the expense of the rest of the industrial community and others in Scotland and England and Wales. I am a Highlander myself, and we have exactly the same difficulty in the Highlands of Wales. But there it is all done at the expense of the funds contributed by the miners, the quarrymen, railwaymen and the agricultural labourers; and there is no grant from the Government. On the contrary, the Governmnt are taking away a very considerable sum of money, while imposing additional burdens, and they say "Look at the boons we are conferring on you in the Highlands." It is a great sham and a fraud. That is why I ask, if I may say so, in reference to the Highlands and in reference to other parts of the country, that we should discuss exactly what the Government are doing here. We owe a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for calling attention to the important document just issued. This document was sent out by the Minister of Health within the last couple of days. Why was it sent?
This is one of the most cleverly drafted Bills ever seen in the House of Commons—and I have seen a good many in my time. It is drafted with the object of concealing what the object of the Bill is and what its purpose is. So cleverly is it done that even approved societies, composed of men who have been engaged all their lives in this task, did not really know what the full effect of it was. When they had their doubts about the matter they were told that that was not so. They probably had a copy of the Publicity Department's explanation. The approved societies said: "We will submit it to actuaries who will be able to dive into its depths." They discovered this for the first time: Not only does it reduce the income of the societies by £2,800,000, but it imposes a burden of £1,900,000, and the aggregate loss which is inflicted is at least £4,800,000. The societies did not themselves fully realise it until they had the explanation in this document. The Minister of Health was unable to give an answer when the approved societies came to him.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that I gave no answer. He is quite
entitled to say that my answer did not satisfy them.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt at all, from the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, that he is always able to say something, but there is a vast difference between that and giving an answer. And the right hon. Gentleman has not explained that. Does he challenge this document and the statement read by my right hon. friend? What does he mean? £2,800,000 is being taken away and there is £1,900,000 of a new liability added here. The report to which they called attention here was that this was an original liability, and without taking £2,800,000 away, ten per cent. of the assets, the societies will be in a deficit without this. In addition to that, they point out the fact that there is an increasing liability in respect of a large section of insured persons—increasing in respect of women, and, as the Royal Commission pointed out, in respect of the men who were beginning to feel the effects of the War, which had shaken their constitution. Here you have a, sum which is inadequate to meet the benefits declared; it is very doubtful whether you have a sufficient sum The sum £2,800,000 has been taken away and 121,900,000 additional liability has been imposed. I ask the right hon Gentleman what answer he has to make to this serious document., which comes from people who, as was pointed out, have not sent it in as a political criticism but have sent it as a number of expert advisers of bodies that represent millions of insured persons who depended upon the guarantee of the State. They have had no explanation that satisfies them. If the right hon. Gentleman has an answer he ought to give it here.
Let me point out another thing in this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has here a sum of 8s. per head. Is that the sum he is going to give them? is that the basis of the new arrangement with the doctors? If so, have the approved societies been consulted about that? You are leaving them in a state of very doubtful solvency. It is all very well for hon. Members to smile, but they themselves are very anxious about, it I have seen a letter written in reply to the right, hon. Gentleman not merely by these actuaries, but by a very able secretary of the Scottish Farm Labourers' Society (Mr.
Lord). It appeared in the '' Scotsman" a few days ago. He says that by 1931 these societies will be unable to pay their benefits. They say they will be able to pay this £1,900,000 and the other benefits already declared out of their surplus, but that is paying out of the accumulated capital, which you are not replenishing. That is wasting your capital. If a man has saved a thousand pounds, of course he can go on spending that for two, three, or four years, but at the end of that time it has gone. That will be the position here. These, accumulated benefits, according to Mr. Wood, will have been dissipated by 1931 in the case of the rural workers. There will be no funds, and existing benefits will have to be reduced now in order to prevent bankruptcy in 1931, or they can go on till 1931 on the chance that some other Chancellor of the Exchequer will put back the money which the present Chancellor has taken away. That is a very unsatisfactory state of things.
I ask the Minister of Health "does this 13s. which you have in this Clause represent t he amount which the Minister of Health has decided should be paid to the doctors, or is it merely a maximum which they have put there for the purpose of complication without consulting the people who are primarily concerned at all and who have to pay it '' On the other hand, if it is merely a figure to form the basis upon which you are to negotiate, what folly, if you are going to negotiate, to put in 13s, in respect of payment ! That is not a good way to start negotiations. I should like to ask, first of all, whether the Ministry ever made an arrangement with the doctors upon the basis of 13s.; and I should also like to ask, in the second place, whether they consulted the approved societies with regard to that figure at all. Then I should like, further, to press the point already pressed by my hon. Friends of the Labour party, whether the money which has been given to the Highlands is money to which the Government are contributing one sixpence in addition to what they are giving now, or whether, on the contrary, they will not be deprived of the part of £2,800,000 to which they are contributing at the present moment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been a very marked and conspicuous difference
between the speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Borough (Mr. Lloyd George), to which we have just listened, and the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), to which we listened at the resumption of the proceedings this evening. The right hon. Member for Derby took up one hour and five minutes of the time of the Committee, and openly admitted, indeed, boasted of the fact, that his purpose was obstruction. After an admission of that kind, one hardly feels that it is necessary to make any reply to the entirely irrelevant points he brought forward. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has adopted an altogether different method. He has made a serious contribution to the debate, and has brought forward arguments which, I think, call for some reply. I shall be very happy to try and justify his tribute to me that I can always find something to say, and I hope that in this case I may be as successful as he is in producing an answer. I want first of all to point out to the Committee what is really the foundation of the argument addressed to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He is not now saying that it is immoral to rifle the pillow of the sick man, but he is saying that the effect of our proposals is to pat the societies into a dangerous financial position, and in support of that argument he adduces a document that has been circulated and signed by certain distinguished actuaries. Therefore, what I have to answer now is the charge that the proposals contained in this Clause 2 added, if you like, to the proposals contained in Clause 1, are such as are going to put the societies into a dangerous financial position.
In considering the justness of that charge let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what was the recommendation of the Royal Commission. We must remember that the Royal Commission also had the advantage of actuarial assistance. They had the advice of the Actuarial Committee, among whom were gentlemen at least as distinguished, I think, in professional capacity as those who signed the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. That Actuarial Committee made certain calculations, showing that there was under the present contributions a margin over and above what was necessary for the
statutory benefits. While they were careful to point out in their report all the difficulties that they had in making those calculations, all the possibilities and dangers they thought ought to be guarded against, they included safeguards which in their opinion were sufficient to make it unnecessary to have any anxiety about the future. Take the question of women, which was one of the most difficult questions they had to consider. They took all the difficulties into account, and, after having done so, they gave a scale which they felt they could confidently recommend to the Royal Commission for a comparatively limited period of years. But if the actuaries who have signed the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred did not agree with that view, the Committee have got to consider whether they will take the opinion of the actuaries who signed the document on behalf of the approved societies, or whether they will take the opinion of the Government actuaries who associated themselves with this report. Having raised the recommendations of the Actuarial Committee—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Commission reported on the assumption that the contribution of the State continued for the same period, and this document to which I have referred is on the assumption of the withdrawal of the;£2,800,000.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Royal Commission, then, having accepted a recommendation of the actuarial committee, found that there was a certain margin available, estimated at £4,500,000 a year. What did they recommend should be done with that £4,500,000? The first charge they said should be to put on the funds of the societies the whole cost of medical benefit. What remained after doing that? They said there were various alternatives and different methods by which that might be dealt with, one of which was to reduce the State contribution, hut, as they did not consider it was any part of their duty to say whether or not the State contribution should be reduced, they went on the assumption that it would not be reduced and showed what benefits could be given. The first benefit to which they referred was allowances to dependants. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of that benefit as one of which the Government
were depriving the insured persons, and I took it that he would be in favour of accepting the Royal Commission's recommendation and making those allowances to dependants. That brings me to this, that the financial position of the societies, if the recommendation of the Royal Commission had been accepted, would have been exactly the same as it is to-day, when we have ourselves adopted a different view and taken the same sum of money. That absolutely demolishes the argument of those who say we are jeopardising the financial position of the societies when they themselves were ready to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman made one statement which, I think, was based on a misunderstanding of the actuarial committee's report. He said that 10 per cent. of the societies would be thrown into deficiency without this imposition of extra charge for medical benefits on the societies. He was mistaken. What they say is that the extra burden—the whole £4,500,000—might place 10 per cent. of the societies in deficiency. They go on to make a recommendation, which is that which we have debated and will be found in a later part of the Bill.
I come to the other points about the 13s. The right hon. Gentleman says: "Does it represent a sum agreed on with the doctors as a composition fee for the future?" I must say that I am a little surprised to hear that suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sur-surprised that he should ask such a question, since he must be so familiar with the working of the Insurance Act, and I do not think 13s. has ever been suggested as a proper or necessary fee for the doctors. I wonder whether he was under the same impression as the hon. Member for the Shipley Division (Mr. Mackinder), who said over and over again yesterday that this Bill was securing to the doctors a fee of 12s. while it was taking away benefits from the poorest of the poor. The Bill, of course, does nothing of the kind. This 13s. is a composition sum. It includes the composition fee which is the subject of agreement with the doctors. Nine shillings goes to the doctors out of the 13s.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is the present amount of the composition sum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Comparable with the 13s. the present amount, do you mean, chargeable out of the Fund? Ten shillings is the comparable amount, and the extra charge which comes out of the Fund is the difference between 10s. and 13s.

Mr. STEPHEN: That makes the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, what the hon. Member for Shipley Division said was that 12s. was going to be secured to the doctors.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee exactly what is to be done with the remaining 3s.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a little difficult to answer all these questions at the same time. I am going to explain how the 13s. is made up. There is 9s. for the doctors. There is 4½ d for mileage charge, 2s. 9d. for the drugs, 6d. for the expenses of the Insurance Committees, and 3d. for the Minister of Health in respect of regional medical officers and central administration. That makes 12s. 10½ d There is a margin of 1½d. left over, which is put in because, as was pointed out in the report of the Royal Commission, the cost of drugs, which is put at 2s. 9d., has been rising in the past, and there is no certainty that we have reached finality in the cost of drugs. But it is provided in the proviso of Clause 2 that
if the aggregate sum paid for any year to insurance committees and the Minister under this Section in respect of each of the total number aforesaid is less than the sum applicable as aforesaid in respect of each of the said total number, the balance shall be carried forward and be treated as being applicable as aforesaid in any subsequent year.
So nothing is lost if the margin is carried forward in case the price of drugs continues to rise. It will be seen that this 13s. is nearly related to the actual cost of the medical benefit. It is, in fact, a strict following of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and while statements have been made as to the consent of the Consultative Committee to this proposal, the approved societies themselves did not consider that these benefits chargeable to the funds of the societies were in any way
unreasonable. I have shown that the charge of financial unsoundness cannot stand with those who are prepared to accept the views of the Royal Commission, and I hope I have given a satisfactory explanation of the composition of the 13s

Mr. WHEATLEY: [HON. MEMBERS:"Divide!"J It is quite evident, from the demand that we have had for an immediate Division, that hon. Members regard a speech from those benches as something which contains the last word of wisdom and which entitles the House immediately to disperse and wend its way to its various habitations. But I think the speech which has been delivered by the Minister of Health, and for which, I suppose, we should be thankful in these days of small mercies, opens up a field of discussion which should not be closed to the Committee.
The comment made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the Minister of Health, although he may have nothing to say, is always capable of saying something, has been borne out by his speech. One of the principal points in discussion was whether or net something was being taken away from the approved societies by the provisions of these two Clauses. The accusation was made that the Government contribution to the approved societies is being reduced by £2,800,000, and that an additional burden of £1,900,000 is being placed on the societies, and that these sums, added together, make up an additional burden on these societies of £4,700,000. The right hon. Gentleman gave us that delightful speech without telling us whether or not he disputed that statement. Does he dispute that £2,800,000 is being taken from the approved societies Does he dispute that additional burdens amounting to £1,900,000 are being placed on the approved societies, and that these two added together make a sum of £4,700,000.
1.0 A. M.
One might be tempted to believe, from the very plausible speech to which we have listened, that actual benefits were being conferred on the approved societies by the Government. Does he seriously ask us to believe that we can penalise the societies to this enormous amount without prejudicing the future prosperity of the societies and those for whom they exist? He gave us a very detailed explanation
of how the 13s. is to be distributed. He showed us that there is really nothing to complain about in this 13s. I think we have here a fine example of the old assertion that figures may be made to prove anything. The hard fact that will face the average man in the street is that the claim for medical benefit on the funds of the approved societies is being increased by this Measure from 10s. to 13s.; that an additional 3s. is being imposed, and that it is this additional 3s. that is responsible, to some extent, for this £1,900,000 to which reference has been made. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to favour the Committee with an explanation of what additional interest the insured people are to obtain for the additional 3s. which each of them has to pay. It is not sufficient to say that so much is going to the doctors, so much to the chemists, so much for transport services and so much for administration expenses. I think the Committee is entitled to know what the people who are paying the 3s. are to receive, which they are not receiving now. At the present moment, so far as the Committee has been enlightened by the right hon. Gentleman, the insured people are receiving exactly the same services for 10s. as they are promised for the 13s. which they are to pay in future, surely it is not unreasonable, when you impose on that very worthy section of the community with whose interest we are dealing an additional financial burden of this amount, that we should have from the people responsible for the Bill some attempt to justify this additional imposition. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain that, because there is really no justification for it.
To ask us to believe that we can impose a burden of £4,700,000 on these societies without injuring the societies is not flattering to our intelligence. The right hon. Gentleman explained that the Commission made no recommendation regarding the State contributions to the insurance funds. That is quite true, but surely he is not justified in saying that the Royal Commission took up a neutral position on this important point. Making no recommendation, surly means that the Commission felt that thestatus quoshould be maintained and that the present contribution of the State to these funds is justified by the necessities of the
approved societies. But the Royal Commission did make recommendation. One of the recommendations was that there should be a considerable extension of what are called additional benefits, and when they made a recommendation for the extension of the policy of additional benefits, they contemplated the existence of funds that would pay for the additional benefits. They implied, by the very recommendation that these additional benefits should be granted, that the amount now being contributed by the State in order to enable the present benefits to be paid and which shows a surplus, should continue to be paid by the State but that in future, instead of going to build up a surplus, it should be expended in additional benefits that would go to the members of the approved societies.
While the right hon. Gentleman is very careful to try to shelter himself behind the recommendations of the Royal Commission when he is dealing with one part of his Measure, he carefully ignores the fact, and desires the Committee to ignore the fact, that he is running directly contrary to the recommendations of the Commission in the section of his Bill which we are now discussing. He is heaping up expenses on the societies; he is diminishing the State contributions to the societies, and he is, in that way, preventing the societies from carrying out the policy of additional benefits which was one of the main recommendations of the Royal Commission. Another thing which he carefully ignores is the fact that while certain interests, including the medical profession, are to get more, the whole of that additional expenditure is to come out of the pockets of the poor.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the medical profession are to get more in consequence of this Clause? If so, that is a misunderstanding.

Mr. WHEATLEY: They are to get more than they would have got out of the old contributions of the societies.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not more than they are getting now.

Mr. WHEATLEY: No, but the sum they are getting now is the sum fixed while this matter was being discussed by
the Royal Commission. The settlement of this point, was one of the things that gave rise to the appointment of the Royal Commission. They could not continue to receive this sum they are getting now out of the amount that is now being paid by the insured people, and therefore, in order to save any reduction of the additional sum that was put on within the past couple of years for medical services, the right hon. Gentleman takes the other course and increases the amount to be paid by the insured people to a sum that will enable the demands of the other section to be met. That is the policy which is being pursued, and it is that policy which has led to the necessity of the additional levy of three shillings per member on the members of the approved societies. I think that proves beyond the shadow of doubt that this scheme puts a levy on the poor for something which is all going to people who are not members of the approved societies. You are taxing the poor to give additional remuneration to the medical profession. I am not arguing that they are not entitled to the additional remuneration; I am not arguing that nine shillings as a capitation fee is too high, but I am arguing that is unfair, when you decide to increase the capitation fee, to include in the same provisions proposals, not for an additional Government grant that would enable you to increase it, hut proposals to reduce the existing Government grant, which was based on a lower capitation fee than the one now to be paid. There is a real injustice there, and however much the right hon. Gentleman may indulge in sneers at our claim that the insured people are being unfairly and unjustly treated by the Bill, the hard fact remains that they are being compelled by this Measure to hear the whole of the additional burden, and to bear it out of a fund to which the State will contribute less than it contributed when the charges on that fund were lower than it is proposed to make them now.
The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt at all, or very little attempt, to reply to the charges that were levelled against him with great force by my right hon. Friend who is the acting leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon. They drew attention to a document of first-class importance in a discussion of this kind. I could not imagine a more
weighty document being introduced than the one that was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The Minister of Health when he came to deal with it, tried to ride away on the [...]lea that it was merely a case of actuaries differing, and that the Committee would have to make up its mind Whether it believed the Government actuaries or whether it believed the independent actuaries who were unfettered in giving a judgment on the financial provisions of the Measure before us. I do not want to rush in where angels fear to tread, but I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it was only common courtesy and fairness to this Committee that a document of that kind should have been presented to it, and that this Committee should have a special opportunity to discuss the provision of a document which has such an important bearing on a matter of this kind affecting the welfare of at least 15,000,000 of the population of this country. It should not have been left to the right hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion, to have enlightened the House on the views of these eminent professional men on the provision of the Bill before us. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was not very flattering when he described the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) as being a waste of time. Indeed, if any part was a waste of time—imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, it was when he proceeded to flatter my right hon. Friend by spending the first ten minutes of his speech in assuring the Committee that he was not going to waste the time of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had done nothing but draw the attention of the Committee to the contents of this memorandum in the sixty-five minutes which he devoted to the opening of this discussion, it would have been very well spent time. But I am submitting that he did much more than that; that he threw a flood of light on the provisions of this Measure, particularly on Clause 2, combined with the pointed questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He succeeded, and surely it is to the benefit of the House, in getting some information as to this Measure from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and from the Minister of Health himself.
Other questions were put that have an important bearing on this Clause to which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is obliged to give some explanation to the Committee. The hon. Member for Gorbals put, a question as to what was meant exactly by the expenditure authorised by the Scottish Board of Health for the administration of medical benefit in certain sparsely populated districts of Scotland. I noticed that when the right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was dealing with this he appeared to assume that this referred to the Highlands and Islands. It is true that in the original Act special provision is made for dealing with difficulties of administering the Act in a district like the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Everyone is familiar with that, and if it had been merely a continuation of that policy everyone would have known what it meant. The right hon. Member for Derby has asked me to explain it to Members who do not know what is geographically meant by the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, but I will assume that the Members of this House know that it is a statutory part of the country in many ways, and that they have had ample explanation of what is meant geographically by the reference in this Measure.
But what I want to draw the attention of the House to is that this Clause 2 goes far beyond the provision that is made in the original Act for dealing with the Highlands and Islands. If it was confined to the provisions of the original Act then the House would know exactly the extent of the additional financial burden that is being placed on the funds of the approved societies. Let me emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon says, that it is ridiculous to say to the Scottish Members, "We are conferring a boon on certain parts of Scotland. "You have no right to use the word "we" in this respect. It is not we who are giving an additional boon, but we are withdrawing our money, keeping it in our pockets and imposing an undefined additional expenditure in regard to medical benefit in certain districts of Scotland. The Government are evading their obligations in Scotland. It does not apply to the Highlands. We have not a Scottish
representative here. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is the Solicitor-General."] I am glad we have one Scottish Member here. I hope the House will, and I think the House is entitled to, have an explanation from a Scottish Member of the Government as to what is meant by this provision. I will put this to the Solicitor-General for Scotland: What part of Scotland or parts of Scotland would come within the terms "sparsely populated areas," leaving out the Highlands and Islands? It would be interesting to the Committee and certainly would enable us to give a more intelligent decision if we knew how much of Scotland might be reasonably expected to be included in the areas in which this additional expenditure might possibly be granted or acquiesced in by the Scottish Board of Health.
I would very much like, if we could, to have an answer from the Solicitor General now before I continue. If he will give any indication of a desire to enlighten the House I will be very pleased to withdraw temporarily and to allow the House to have the benefit of his advice. I can only assume that the Government have no answer to give. The probability is—and it is supported by the absence of Scottish Members from those benches—that they are taking no interest in this Measure at all. They do not seem to know that they are interested in the very Clause which is being discussed now. It is clear that one Minister has been disturbed in his slumbers, but, at any rate, he has not recovered sufficient vitality to answer Scottish questions in the House. In these circumstances, we can only endeavour to examine this proposal in the light of such information as has been given to us, and to grope oud way through this Clause, and try to extract from it some little understanding of what it actually means. The one thing that is really plain is that it does not mean the Highlands and Islands only. It goes beyond the Highlands and Islands. We may take it that it does not include the industrial centres. It does not include England at all. I shall be greatly surprised if English Members allow this discussion to be closed without some explanation of how England stands—England which has to contribute to the pool out of which this additional expenditure has to be met. They will
probably ask whether there is no equivalent grant for England.
I am not to-night under any obligation to speak for England. Had I been on the other side of the Table in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the. Minister for Health, responsible for the administration of this scheme in England, and representing an English constituency, I would certainly have felt it my duty even as a Scottish Member to have had a clear definition and understanding as to why additional payments towards medical benefit were to be made to certain districts in Scotland at the expense of England, and I should have asked why England was left entirely out. But I will leave that to the right hon. Gentleman to explain to his constituents in Ladywood, when he goes to explain the other provisions of the Bill. As I said, the Highlands and Islands are specifically excluded from the additional expenditure for medical benefit provided in this Bill. Are we to take it that the larger centres are excluded? It will not apply to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Dundee, or to any of the Clyde-Forth areas. But will Perthshire be included in this; will Caithness be put in, and will Argyllshire come in? We are entitled to know, because if we do not know we cannot estimate the additional expenditure. It is impossible that even an approximately reasonable estimate of what is the additional expenditure will be available until we get some indication of what is in the mind of the people who framed this Measure. On the other items of expenditure, the mind of the right hon. Gentleman is clear. He can tell us of the thirteen shillings. But the expenditure to which I now draw the attention of the Committee is not included in the thirteen shillings at all, and the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to explain a single particle of the expenditure, or, if he is, he is so ashamed of the provisions that he will not explain.

Mr. CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put,"That the Question he now put."

The Committee divided Ayes, 191;Noes, 110.

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. w. Derby)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dawson, Sir Philip


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Dixey, A. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Drewe, C.


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Eden, Captain Anthony-


Astor, Viscountess
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aaton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Elliott, Captain Walter E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ellis, R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J A (Birm.,W.)
Elveden, Viscount


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clarry, Reginald George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bethel, A.
Clayton, G. C.
Fermoy, Lord


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fielden, E. B.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Brass, Captain W.
Couper, J. B.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Briscoe, Richard George
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thl'd., Hoxham)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Goff, sir Park


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Gower, Sir Robert


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grace, John


Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Grant, J. A.


Burman, J. B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Gretton, Colonel John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Grotrian, H. Brent.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, E. W.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Skelton, A. N.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne. C.)


Hall, Capt. W. D' A (Brecon & Rad.)
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meyer, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harland, A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Willsden,E.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Haslam, Henry C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hawke, John Anthony
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Storry-Deans, B.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)
Stott, Lieut-Colonel W. H.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hennesay, Major J. R. G.
Neville, R. J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hills, Major John Waller
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Homan, C. W. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Penny, Frederick George
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waddington, R.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Perring, Sir William George
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hopkinton, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Philipson, Mabel
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wells, S. R.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Preston, William
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Huntingfield, Lord
Radford, E. A.
White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hurd, Percy A.
Raine, W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remnant, Sir James
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Jacob, A. E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ropner, Major L.
Withers, John James


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A..
Womersley, W. J.


Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Little. Dr. E. Graham
Rye, F. G.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Loder, J. de V.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lougher, L.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D, T.


Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord



Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McLean, Major A.
Savery, S. S.
Major Cope and Mr. F, C. Thomson.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)



Macquisten, F. A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Day, Colonel Harry
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dennison, R.
Hirst, G. H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Duckworth, John
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barr, J.
Duncan, C-
Hore-Belisha. Leslie


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)


Broad, F. A.
Forrest, W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bromfield, William
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
John. William (Rhondda, West)


Bromley, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Buchanan, G
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Cape, Thomas
Greenall, T.
Kelly, w. T.


Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Clowes, S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kenyon, Barnet


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kirkwood, D.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grundy, T. W.
Lansbury, George


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lawson, John James


Compton, Joseph
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Lee, F.


Connolly, M.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lowth, T.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hardie, George D.
Mackinder, W.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Harris, Percy A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)




MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Townend, A. E.


Montague, Frederick
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C P.


Morris, R. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Varley, Frank B.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Viant, S. P.


Murnin, H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Naylor, T. E.
Sitch, Charles H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Oliver, George Harold
Smillie, Robert
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Owen, Major G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Paling, W.
Snell, Harry
Whiteley, VV.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wiggins, William Martin


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Purcell, A. A.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sullivan, Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ritson, J.
Sutton, J. E.
Windsor, Waiter


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Taylor, R. A.
Wright, W.


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Scurr, John
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)



Sexton, James
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[1.30 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Radford, E. A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Raine, W.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Astor, Viscountess
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Atkinson, C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Balniel, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ropner, Major L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harrison, G, J. c.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bethel, A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rye, F. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Hawke, John Anthony
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sandon, Lord


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Shepperson, E. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Bullock, Captain M.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Storry Deans, R.


Chapman, sir S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Couper, J. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lougher, L.
Templeton, W. P.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. B.
Wells, s. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Dixey, A. C.
Margesson, Captain D.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Drewe, C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Duckworth, John
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


England, Colonel A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Formoy, Lord
Neville, R. J.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nuttall, Ellis
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Galbraith, J. F, W.
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Goff, Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gower, Sir Robert
Perring, sir William George



Grace, John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grant, J. A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major Cope and Lord Stanley


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Preston, William





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clowes, S.
Fenby, T. D.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Ammon, Charles George
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Compton, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Gillett, George M.


Barr J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Batey, Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Bromley, J.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hall, F. (York, W. R Normanton)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Cape, Thomas
Dunnico, H.
Hardie, George D.


Charleton, H. C.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon




Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Purcell, A. A.
Varley, Frank B.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ritson, J.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Whiteley, W.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wiggins, William Martin


Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lansbury, George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilson, C. H, (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wright, W.


Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morris, R. H.
Stephen, Campbell



Oliver, George Harold
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Owen, Major G.
Sullivan, Joseph
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne


Paling, W.
Taylor, R. A.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 114

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[1.39 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Malone, Major P. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Goff, Sir Park
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Ashley, U.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, R. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Grace, John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Atkinson, C.
Grant, J. A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Balniel, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greene, w, P. Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bethel, A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. s. D. L. (Exeter)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hacking, Captain Douglas H
Nuttall, Ellis


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brocklebank, c. E. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Preston, William


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Radford, E. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R, (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bullock, Captain M.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watlord)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth. S)
Hills, Major John Waller
Ropner, Major L,


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Bye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Couper, J. B.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sandon, Lord


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jacob, A. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelten, A. N.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dixey, A. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacLaren, Andrew
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Storry-Deans, R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Templeton, W. P.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
While, Lieut-Colonel G. Dairymple
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)
Wragg, Herbert


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Major Cope and Lord Stanley


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sullivan, Joseph


Clowes, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, K. E.
Kennedy, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Mackinder, W.
Whiteley, W.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Duckworth, John
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


England, Colonel A.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Fenby, T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Purcell, A. A.



Gillett, George M.
Richardson, B. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne

CLAUSE 3.—(Application of Reserve suspense Fund and Central Fund towards making good deficiencies due to provisions of this Fart of this Act).

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The first Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb)—in page 3, line 38, after the word"society,' to insert the words
(such valuation to take into account the necessary provision for continuing any additional benefits granted in respect of the surpluses of the first and second valuations)"—
is out of place. If it be moved, it will have to come as a proviso.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move,"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think we are entitled at this stage to ask the Government whether they think we ought to proceed any further this morning. There are in the House a large number of Members with much longer Parliamentary experience than the Minister of Health. I have spoken to acme of them, and asked them whether in their experience, and within their knowledge of the House, they remember a similar incident to the one, we have just experienced.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: May I point out that this is the second time?

Mr. THOMAS: Whatever differences there may be on this side, and whatever differences of view on any side, we arc not going to stand by, any of us, and see our people and friends insulted.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is worthy of Brummagem?

Mr. THOMAS: I did not want any reminder from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), because the precedent to which I was drawing attention was that the same Minister did the same before to the same ex-Minister. I ask the Committee to keep in mind that, whatever else may happen, it is as certain as I am standing here that those on this side to-day will one day be sitting there, and it does not rest with you people on that side to establish such dangerous precedents.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman is alluding. I have not yet been able to follow him.

Mr. THOMAS: I quite appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Hope, because, unfortunately, the incident to which I am referring happened when you were not in the Chair. It was that the ex-Minister of Health, who had himself appointed a Royal Commission, was proceeding to give his views on the Report of that Commission which he had appointed, and his successor in office took the unprecedented course of moving the Closure against him.

The CHAIRMAN: It has been pointed out by Mr. Speaker and others that anybody has the right to move the Closure. It has been repeatedly ruled that the Closure may be the act of anybody, and it cannot be debated afterwards in the House.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not challenge the propriety of that ruling, but at this stage in our proceedings, and after that incident, I am going to ask whether the Government themselves think we ought to proceed further. I repeat deliberately that it is an insult which we will not tolerate. It is a mean and a contemptible thing, and it would not have been done by an old Parliamentary hand.

The CHAIRMAN: I will put the Question at once.

Mr. MAXTON: More sharp practice. I would not allow another speech to be permitted.

Question put,"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 179.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[2.0 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)
Sullivan, Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thurtle, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Mo'gan (Caerphilly)
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Manly (Pontypridd)
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maxton, James
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dennison, R,
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Duckworth, John
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Dunnico, H.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


England, Colonel A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. VI.
Windsor, Walter


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Purcell, A. A.



George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Gibbins, Joseph
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gillett, George M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Scurr, John



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Radford, E. A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gunston, Captain D. W,
Raine, W.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dutwich)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Astor, Viscountess
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Atkinson, C.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Balniel, Lord
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Major L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bethel, A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rye, F. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hawke, John Anthony
Salmon, Major I.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G,
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brass, Captain W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandon, Lord


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hills, Major John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. 1.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Shepperson, E. W,


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Burman, J. B.
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jacob, A. E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wim'sden, E.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Storry-Deans, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Loder, J. de V.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lougher, L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, W. p.


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W, (Berwick)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempsfd)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Malone, Major P. S.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Margosson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M, (Cornwall, Northern)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dixey, A. C.
Mellor, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Drewe, C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hydi)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Neville, R. J.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Fermoy, Lord
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nuttall, Ellis
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Goff, Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gower, Sir Robert
Perring, Sir William George



Grant, J. A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Preston, William

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, to leave out the word"may,"and to insert instead thereof the word"shall."
The object of Clause 3 is to make good deficiences due to provisions of this part of the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to put "shall" instead of "may." Is it expected that, there will be cases where deficiency is caused by the working Of the Bill and whether the deficiency will not be made good by the action of the Minister? If not, why is the Clause worded in this way
if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on this point. As the Clause is worded, it looks as though it was intended that deficiencies might occur which would not be made good.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I see that Subsections (2) and (3) provide alternative ways in which the Minister of Health can proceed when he receives a certificate of deficiency. What has the Minister in mind in inserting the words "having regard to all the circumstances of the case?" What are the considerations which have led him to make a decision
as to whether he shall not offer a sum to a society, or branch of a society, or to the joint Committee under the Subsection?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose—

HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"

The CHAIRMAN: The right non. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has an Amendment on the Order Paper which comes before the present Amendment. I find that the. proviso of that Amendment should have been moved before this Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, to allow this Amendment to come on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
provided that such valuation shall take into acount the necessary provision for continuing any additional benefits granted in respect of the surpluses of the first and second valuations.
I was informed in the first instance that the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Seaham and myself would come on afterwards, but it suits my purpose to move this Amendment at this stage. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that the approved society which has paid additional benefit as a result of the second valuation shall not he in a worse position as the result of the passing of Clause 3 than it would have been if the Clause had never been part of the Act. Let me put the case in this way. Clause 3 provides that where a society is found on a certificate of the actuary to be in deficiency, then it is proposed to make up that deficiency from a pool of surpluses of other societies. That, I take it, is the object of Clause 3. I understand, however, there is a difference of opinion as to what the intention of the Clause really is, and I venture to put the case in this way. If, as a result of the passing of this Bill, a society is found to be in a deficiency, it will be competent for the Minister of Health to say that that society will be able, in spite of the deficiency, to pay what is called normal statutory benefit. I thing I am right in putting it that way. The purpose of the Amendment which I am moving would carry the societies a step further; that is
to say, where a society has been giving, for the purpose of illustration, 2s. a week additional benefit for sickness, an additional 1s for disablement benefit, and an additional 5s. for maternity benefit, besides dental treatment and dentures and optical treatment and optical appliances, then the society would be entitled to pay this additional benefit in spite of what we might do in this Clause. It is agreed on all hands that by the passing of Clauses 1 and 2, at least 10 per cent. of the societies will be in a deficiency. That is not challenged, but if it be I will read what the actuaries themselves say. These are not actuaries doing work for approved societies, but Government actuaries:
We are led to expect, after making the best estimates of which the case admits, that the effect of the new burdens would be to create eventually a condition of deficiency in societies representing about 10 per cent. of whole insured population.''
Now, 10 per cent. of the whole of the insured population, if my calculations are correct, means that 1,500,000 persons will suffer a deficiency through their approved societies, as a consequence of the Measure. So far so good. Let us see, therefore, what will happen to those numbers of persons who will suffer this deficiency. The Government come along and say, "We will make up this deficiency, and say that in no circumstances would any society be any worse off as a result of the passing of this Measure." That is the point which has annoyed all persons connected with the conduct of approved societies. They are annoyed that gentlemen connected with the Government should declare that., in spite of the fact that they are taking away all this money from approved societies. these societies will not be one jot the worse as a consequence. Will the Minister of Health answer this question, in order that we may prove the contention that we have made, that the result of the passing of this Measure will put at least 1,500,000 of the insured persons of this country in a worse position than if the Bill never became the law of the land? Take a society as a result of the first valuation. It is paying 2s. additional sickness benefit, a shilling disablement benefit and 5s. maternity benefit and the other benefits I have named. Can the Minister of Health give the House an undertaking that if that society finds a deficiency disclosed in its
valuation results on the third valuation, in spite of the fact that it is in a deficiency, will he give an undertaking that they will not be worse off as a consequence of the passing of this Measure? That is the intention of the Amendment I am about to move. There is a fact I ought to mention before I sit down. The Parliamentary Secretary in his note to the Press made this extraordinary statement:
A disposable surplus of over —9,000,000 is available as a result of the first valuation of approved societies, and the still larger disposable surplus available out of £45,000,000 anticipated on the second valuation will prove a considerable factor in the improvement of our national conditions. Not a penny of these sums will be touched for economy purposes. All will be fully available for insured persons.
My complaint is that the Government every time its representatives speak on this subject tell only about a quarter of the truth. They never state the whole of the truth, and the truth of the situation is this, that 10 per cent. of the insured population will be worse off as a consequence of the passing of this Measure, unless the Amendment I am moving is accepted by the Government. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. There is nothing wrong, surely, in asking that the approved societies should not be in a worse position than they were but for the passing of this Act. The Minister of Health nods assent. I am perfectly sure that he is not nodding assent to the idea that the approved societies should be in a worse position. It is intended, under Clause 3, to take money out of the surpluses of other approved societies who have secured surpluses because of good administration and otherwise, and what we complain of is that the Government are now calling on the poor to help the poor, whereas, in the past, the Government came to the aid of these societies and helped them to pay the additional benefits that they had been accustomed to pay.
The schedule of additional benefits here is a very wide and extensive one. The approved societies of this country, up to the present—the best of them, at least—have not adopted more than about four out of 14 to which they are entitled. The complaint we make is that the approved societies were only just commencing to adopt these provisions, and, by Clause 3, they are designed deliberately to be placed in deficiency in respect of that 10
per cent. I ask the Minister to take heed of what I have said, and give a definite reply to the question whether, in making up the deficiency under this Clause, not only will it be made up in respect of normal statutory benefits, but also in respect of additional benefits under the second and third valuation results. I feel sure that the approved societies of this country will expect something of this kind to be done.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is, I think, not quite correct in assuming that the societies representing 10 per cent of the insured persons who, as suggested by the actuaries, will be thrown into deficiency, are thereby going to be worse off, because the provisions of the Bill are such that, at any rate in some of those cases, they will be no worse off. This Amendment proposes to go far beyond the intention of the Bill, which is that no society should have to reduce its statutory benefits or to levy upon its members by reason of anything done in the Bill. The hon. Member wants to go further, and say that the additional benefits which have been, or may be, declared as a result of surpluses on the first and second valuations, shall also be stereotyped for all time.

Mr. DAVIES: Shall be secured to them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Shall be stereotyped. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I understand him to mean that, if on the third valuation the surpluses are such as not to justify the continuation of benefits that have been given in respect of the second valuation, then a sufficient sum is to be drawn from the Reserve Suspense Fund to enable the society to make up its benefits.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not think it will be stereotyping the position if the deficiency is made up to the periods of the first and second valuations. They would remain the same, but it would not be stereotyping the increased benefits.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the hon. Member's correction. I understand he means that they will be left. One of the fundamental principles of the Insurance Act is that it is designed to encourage each society to manage its affairs in the most careful, thrifty, and economical manner possible. Special safeguards were introduced into the scheme, under
which every inducement is given to the society to exercise the necessary care.

Mr. LANSBURY: To plunder them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the scheme the societies were to have the benefit of their thrift. That, of course, is what we wish to continue. But let me point out to the Committee what would be the result of this Amendment if it were accepted. Suppose you have two societies comparable in most respects as regards the class of claim that comes upon them, and also in respect of numbers. One society is careful, economical and conscientious in the administration of its work. The other Society is lax and careless. [AN HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot find such a society."] Let us suppose there were two such societies, because we must consider these hypothetical cases if we want to consider the scheme as a whole. What I want to point out to the Committee is what would be the result to those two societies if this Amendment were accepted. Suppose that, owing to some general cause, the surpluses of all societies were reduced at the next valuation, on account of, let us say, an epidemic of disease. You may have, in the case of a careful society, where they so make up, by the care and thrift which they have exercised, for the extra claims put on them, that their surpluses are just as great on the third as on the second valuation. Under the Amendment, there would be no claim on the fund from the careful society, but, in the case of the other society, which through its very laxity and carelessness, might have brought down its surpluses on the third valuation and could not distribute benefits then, under this Amendment, it would immediately and automatically come in for a claim on the Reserve Suspense Fund

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on this subject? [HON. MEMBERS: "He will Closure it!."]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member must let me continue. What I am pointing out is that the Amendment would detract between one society and another, and would be contrary to the fundamental principle of the scheme, because it would be encouraging a society
that did not take proper care under the scheme.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question dealing with the point he is now discussing? Sub-section (2) of this Clause says
the Minister, on receiving a certificate under this Section, may, if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say if that covers the case he is now explaining?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the point which is covered by the Amendment. I was going to say that the consideration which I have put before the Committee leads to this, that if the Amendment were accepted it would be necessary in the interests of the societies themselves to set up a far more thorough and complete system of control and check and examination of the workings of the societies than exists at present, and that would not be welcomed by the societies any more than by the Minister himself. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. THOMAS: Now that we have passed Clause 2, we are beginning to get the real explanation of the previous Clauses, and I draw the attention of the Committee to the statement we have just heard. The grounds on which this Amendment which we are moving is being rejected are that it would tend to prevent that close supervision, that economical mind, that care and consideration by the societies that are so desirable. I think that is a fair statement of the case, or of one of the reasons. The right hon. Gentleman then goes on to say, "In order to demonstrate this point I will take two societies, one carelessly managed, with no regard to expenditure, loose, with a deficit, or at least unable to show a surplus."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. THOMAS: If not able to show a surplus, then not in such a good position as another well managed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me explain what my illustration really was. It is not a question of societies being in a deficit at all or of one being in a worse position than the other. It is under the amend-
ment in a position so that its surplus on the third valuation is less than its surplus on the second.

Mr. THOMAS: That is exactly the consideration which I am trying to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I put it to him he meant, taking two societies, the one badly and the other efficiently managed, that the effect of the amendment would be to give the badly managed society a preference if need be over the other. Is not that a fair statement? I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is the first and clearest admission by the Government. Notwithstanding all that has been said about this Bill not taking any money and not interfering with the approved society member. Our Amendment seeks to safeguard the third valuation. That is the important point to keep in mind. None of us have urged that anything can arise over the second valuation. We have always said we are dealing with the surplus that may arise on the third valuation. We have now heard that the grounds on which this amendment is refused are, first., that it gives a preference to a badly managed society over a good one. That is exactly our objection to the whole Clause. We have quoted the Commission's Report, we have quoted our own actual experience and we have said the net effect of this Bill, boiled down, is to take from the well-managed, good and efficient societies the surplus that they expect on the third valuation. It has taken us to reach this Clause to get that fact. The Minister says another reason why he cannot accept the amendment is that there may be an epidemic. That statement admits that there may be additional benefits. It is an admission that societies on the second valuation can pay the additional benefits, but if you have an unfortunate epidemic, such as has been described, and that epidemic has the effect of seriously interfering with the surpluses on a future valuation, then the net effect is this: Not only will that society not be able to get any benefit that may arise from the third valuation, but it may easily have the effect of depriving them of additional benefits due to the money that has been already taken. Therefore, I can understand the Minister's reluctance.
We have argued throughout that nothing should be done to interfere with good management. I have been myself
the secretary of a very large approved society since the commencement of the Act, and I have been president of the society, but I have never yet heard in any Commission—and I have been connected with most of them—or in any consultative committee or any other body connected with National Health Insurance that there was the suggestion that further interference was necessary to check them. Take the case of maternity benefit. We have just prosecuted one of our own branch secretaries because of a false statement made in connection with maternity benefit. The person who discovered it, the one who drew our attention to it, the first to say the prosecution must go on, was one of his own fellow-men. That is not an isolated case. The common experience is that the men are so anxious to safeguard the fund that they provide a check themselves. The Government action in this matter is going to have the effect of preventing that care and anxiety which is so essential for the good administration of the, Act. The argument will be this. You get a branch secretary, a branch committee and the officers of a society who have hitherto always been anxious to safeguard the fund and so on. Suppose anything of a lax character arises and we draw attention to it, and say this may ultimately effect your services and may ultimately prevent your additonal benefits. I am convinced that the net effect of this is going to be that these people will draw attention to this right away as a justification for their action; and unless you accept this Amendment moved in the name of our party you are going to give them grounds, because they will be able to say there is no cheek and no guarantee. I respectfully submit that, however anxious the right hon. Gentleman may have been to meet the argument and the object of the Amendment, he certainly has not done it in the speech we have just heard.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I feel that what we have just heard from the Minister of Health has rather justified the fears which many of us felt since these proposals were first made. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have tried to assure us on several occasions that insured persons would not be worse off, and that the benefits
from the first and second valuations would be secured to them. It seemed to me that the Government's acceptance of this Amendment would follow as a matter of course from their previous declarations. It is, therefore, alarming that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that, after the third valuation, a substantial number of societies may find it necessary to cut down the benefits which have already been or will be given after the second valuation. It must be kept in mind in this connection that these additional benefits are not something of the nature of extra gifts or something which is really outside and beyond the scope of the Fund. It is simply an attempt to come a little nearer to what was the object of the insurance system. A full and complete medical service and adequate financial benefits were designed from the very first. Restrictions on these were made by regulations under the Act, and they were principally made so that time might be given in order to be assured of the financial soundness of the scheme and especially how it stood the strain of the War years. Now that these things have been assured we naturally expected, and the approved societies contemplated, bringing the scheme something more into line with what was at first, intended, and therefore these additional benefits which are being given as the result of the second valuation are not something in the way of largesse which may be taken away when circumstances arc less propitious; they are simply steps on the road to a full realisation of a, complete insurance scheme. It is, therefore, alarming to find that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that not only may we get no additional benefits in many cases, but that even the benefits already secured under these two valuations may be reduced, and that the Government will only make up deficiencies in order to provide the ordinary statutory minimum benefits.
These things will come as a very great surprise and a very great shock to those who have been working this Act, and I agree with the right hon Gentleman who has just spoken that nothing will have more effect in tending to slackness in administration than the action of the Government. It will be agreed by those who have experience of approved societies that their officials a-re wonderfully effi-
cient, and have been very keen and earnest in working this Act. I would suggest that the inspiration and the impetus to economical working are given by one society being put against the other. The officials of the approved societies are keen to have their own particular section efficient and providing better benefits than other sections, and this spirit of friendly emulation has tended to the efficient administration of the Act. It is generally admitted that anything in the way of slackness or bad administration has been very exceptional. After efficient work of this kind and after the Societies have made the finances of the scheme healthy, the Government seize upon part of the accumulation, and take it for other purposes. It cannot be too often emphasised that every penny which can be accumulated by this Fund is required to make the scheme an efficient scheme, which at present it is not. The additional benefits—present and possible —are really vitally necessary. For instance no medical scheme can be successful that does not provide for efficient dental treatment. Then there is the subject of specialist medical service In view of the enormous complexity of diseases and the great increase in specialist treatment now-a-days, it is ridiculous to maintain complacently, a purely general practitioner's service for panel patients. We shall never get the system what it should be until we have a complete and efficient medical service. It seems however, that not only shall we be left simply with some dental benefit, some oculist benefit and perhaps here and there, a little addition to allowances and maternity benefit after this third valuation —we shall almost certainly have no specialist medical service—but some of these more elementary services may even be taken away. I think it is the least the Government can do is to say that, these being steps on the way to an efficient service, in the event of a deficiency on the third valuation, they will make up not only the minimum statutory benefits, but any other benefits which may have been given and to which the insured persons quite rightly will expect themselves to continue to be entitled. As I have said, there need be no fear that this will lead to slack administration. There are safeguards against that. The only fears that can naturally come now will be fears of predatory action on the part of Governments.
If this Government would only have the grace to confess their sins in this matter, and to say that they will accept this amendment and not sin again, I am sure they need have no fear but what the approved societies and their officials will go on, as before, and try to make the scheme efficient. There is no risk in that course, but rather is it a moral duty for the Government to consent either to this Amendment or to make themselves the necessary alterations in their policy which will bring about the same result.

Captain GARRO-JONES: It does not need to be an expert in National Health Insurance when the Government is being driven to such very strange refinement of argument for some of their proposals in this Bill. I regard this Amendment as giving to the Government of the whole principle which is involved. The question is whether or not additional benefits are to be regarded as part of the National Health Insurance scheme. Additional benefits in the original conception of the schemes in every Amendment that has been made to the scheme and in every report of every Commission which has ever sat upon the scheme have been regarded as an integral part of the scheme and what the Government is now attempting to do is to detach them from that scheme altogether. What has the question of efficient management to do with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I do not see that efficient management has anything to do with it. All that this Amendment seeks to provide is that in the valuation of an approved society if it appears that a deficiency will be disclosed, that in the consideration of that deficiency additional benefit shall be taken into consideration. No liabilities are to be entered into at all. I want to read Sub-section (2) as having a direct bearing on this Amendment:—
The Minister, on receiving a certificate under this Section, may, if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, cause a sum equal to the amount specified in the certificate to be credited to the society or branch"—
If it is found that the Society has been inefficiently managed he is not called upon to make any recommendations at all. There is no action which he is compelled to take. The same thing is to
be found in Sub-section (3). As a matter of fact I hope the Minister will address some new arguments why he is not able to accept this Amendment because it seems to me who regards the matter in no technical light, but simply in the light of an obligation that what the Government is doing is to detail additional benefits from the scheme when additional benefits should remain an integral part of the whole scheme.

Mr. MELLER: I rise to take part in the discussion upon this Amendment, because it seems to me that those who have spoken do not quite understand how surpluses and additional benefits are obtained. After the long experience which the hon. Member has had in regard to Approved Societies I am surprised that he should have been so unwise as to have brought forward such a proposal as is contained in this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has said that the Government proposed under this Bill to take away additional benefits, and he rather suggested that the additional benefits exist to-day for all societies whether there has been a surplus earned or otherwise. Let me just inform him of what is an elementary lesson in National Health Insurance. It is this—that the scheme itself provides that there shall be certain statutory benefits. These are quite well-known—sickness benefit, disablement benefit, and maternity benefit. But the benefits that have been referred to are benefits which have been conferred under certain conditions, namely, that when a Society is in such a state of prosperity that it can not only provide the statutory benefit, it shall provide certain other benefits which the Society may select. The proposal under this Amendment as I understand it is, that once a Society has obtained a position of being able to provide an additional benefit out of the surpluses in the particular quinquennial period covered by the valuation that for all time that extra benefit has to exist. It has been clearly explained in the Debate that during the past ten years—certainly during the past five years—there has been a fairly large accession to the funds of the Societies. This has occurred under abnormal circumstances, partly due to the great waste of life during the war and partly due to the
increased earning powers of the funds of Societies. There have been exceptional years, and I do not anticipate the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years to show such exceptions.

Mr. THOMAS: Why support taking the money?

Mr. MELLER: I am not going to be led upon that line or away from my argument. I want to point out to the Committee that you cannot expect in the next quinquennial period to have the same prosperous conditions as you have had in the past. You must have from time to time fluctuating surpluses which may give you additional benefits, but you cannot under this scheme guarantee, after the quinquennial review, that for all time these additional benefits are going to be maintained.

3.0 A.M.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman be so good as to explain under what provision they are to be maintained for all time under this Amendment? In answering that question, would he pay regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 of the Bill?

Mr. MELLER: I do not think Subsection (2) affects the question at all.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Yes it does.

Mr. MELLER: Under no Statute has there been an undertaking or guarantee that when an additional benefit has been once granted by a society, that additional benefit shall remain for all time.

Mr. THOMAS: It is quite clear to me that my hon. Friend has not understood the object of this Amendment. It is not the guarantee of additional benefits, but only in so far as these additional benefits would be affected by the amount taken by the Government.

Mr. MELLER: If these additional benefits have been given as a result of the first valuation or the second valuation, whenever a deficiency arises these benefits have to be continued, evidently. It is nothing more than a stabilisation of these additional benefits. If there is a deficiency at any moment these additional benefits must be made up when taken into consideration by the Minister. I say that if you get national health insurance it is an impossible condition to put in. The
only way we could get it would be by a guarantee by the Government that once a society has attained to the position of additional benefits that benefit shall never be taken away, and the Government must undertake to make up the funds of the societies.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I think the Committee is anxious to get to the truth, and I am going to repeat what I called the attention of the Minister to in regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. If the hon. Member would cast his eye over that Clause he would not be so confident of the statements he is making. The Clause reads as follows:
The Minister, on receiving a certificate under this Section may, if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, cause a sum equal to the amount specified in the certificate to be credited to the society or branch out of any balance standing to the credit of the Reserve Suspense Fund, after due provision has been made for the payment of any sum charged on that Fund under or by virtue of any enactment, and if there is no such balance standing to the credit of that Fund or the balance is insufficient for the purpose of providing the whole amount specified in the certificate, the Minister may transmit the certificate with a statement as to the amount which cannot be provided out of the said Fund to the Joint Committee, and that Committee shall thereupon cause that amount to he credited to the society out of the Central Fund.
How can additional benefits be permanently stabilised in that case?

Mr. MELLER: I am not suggesting that they are to be permanently stabilised. If the hon. and gallant Member will read this Clause through and make a little research into National Health Insurance and its benefit provisions, he will understand how this Fund is built up and how societies make up a deficiency out of their own fund. He will also understand how they can go to a central fund for further assistance. In no circumstances in regard to the proposals which have been made by the Government under this Economy Bill shall a Society be in the position that its statutory benefits shall ever fall below the statutory value; but with regard to additional benefits in kind or in cash no undertaking has been given. Nothing is taken away by this Bill and the society is in no worse position than it was under the old provision. The only difference is that by taking away something from
societies—£,2,800,000 per annum—the societies cannot be in so good a position at the next valuation as they would have been. What the Government are endeavouring to explain is that by recasting the financial basis of the Act the proposal to take away this money will not fall so hardly on the societies as they think. That is the position. If the hon. Member is prepared to make a better explanation in the House, I am prepared to sit down. I am endeavouring to explain that the additional benefits such as dental treatment would be pub back, but having regard to the explanations which have been given and having regard to the position the country finds itself in to-day I think we should agree to the proposals put forward.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is straying rather far from the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. MELLER: I am sorry that I have been led into it by the interpolations of the hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. The Amendment would not ho acceptable to approved societies, for it would mean that those societies which are in a deficiency owing to bad management would get an advantage under the proposals and the societies which are well managed would have no such advantage.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I regret the necessity of having to intervene again in this discussion. My interest in this Bill is peculiar in its nature. I wanted to remind you, sir, that it was I who set up the Royal Commission with whose Report we are necessarily largely dealing in the course of the debate, and I felt it was due to the Committee, as an ex-Minister of Health who during the short period of office had to deal with these special problems to express my view on the proposal before it. I could not find Parliamentary language in which to express my indignation and contempt for the action of my successor when I rose for practically the first time —because the few remarks I made yesterday were only of a few minutes' duration—that in the course of my observations very relevant, if any relevance at all is to be obtained from the fact that I was speaking in the early hours of the morning, and
replying to a speech by the Minister himself, I cannot find, as I have said, any language which I would not regret to use to express my contempt for the action he took.

The CHAIRMAN: The action taken by the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will not proceed further because there is justification. It was due to that Act to which I am referring, which I will not proceed to describe, that I have to rise again and ask the indulgence of the Committee while I add my contribution to this important Debate. We have had a remarkable speech from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It was a speech bristling with interest. I agreed with him when he remarked in comment on an observation from this side of the House that if there was anyone here who could explain the matter better then he would very readily give way and make room for his better. I can assure him that no one on this side of the House could so completely demolish the case against this Amendment as he has done in opposing the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the probability that these approved societies may not always find themselves in the prosperous financial position that they occupied in these years which immediately followed on the circumstances of the war and other things to which he has referred. He says they may not have these surpluses ten or twenty years hence. They may not be able to maintain anything like the benefits they are giving to their members to-day. But may I remind the Committee that the whole case for taking the £2,800,000, if there is any case at all, then the whole case for adding 1,900,000 of additional burdens to the societies is based on the asumption that these surpluses will continue in years to come and the societies can do without the money of which they are being robbed to-day.
The Minister of Health, in the course of his reply to the statement made by the Mover of this Amendment, was as unreasonable as we have been led to expect from the right hon. Gentleman in the arguments he presents to this House. He says that if this Amendment were adopted you would probably—I do not think he would even qualify it—you will
penalise the well-managed societies in order to confer advantages on the badly managed societies. He called them Society No. 1 and Society No. 2. Society No. 1 is being well managed. As a result of these economies it is able to grant additional benefit to its members. Society No. 2 is being penalised for its extravagance and carelessness and mismanagement and can only grant the statutory benefits. He says this Amendment would penalise the good and reward the bad. But what does this Clause actually do? If to-day this Clause is in operation, the badly managed Society No. 2, which is only paying its statutory benefits, finds it is in deficiency on the forthcoming valuation, but the Minister takes power to insure that he will make good the deficiency to enable it to pay the statutory benefit which the society is paying now—in other words, to protect the society which he assumes is only paying the bare statutory benefits because of its poverty. The Amendment says he ought to take power in addition to protect the well-managed society. The well-managed society is, let us say, giving dental benefit, but as a result of this additional burden that has been placed on it and the reduction in the State contribution it finds that it is on the next valuation unable to continue to give dental benefit. The Minister refuses to take power to insure that that society is able to give its members what it is giving to-day. If that is not penalising the well managed and protecting the badly managed, I do not know what is the meaning of language.
While the right hon. Gentleman is actually pursuing this course he comes forward and asks the Committee to reject this Amendment on the ground that it is doing what he is actually doing and which we want to modify by the Amendment we have proposed. From the beginning of the discussions on this Measure the Government have over and over again declared that no society will be poorer and that no insured person will suffer as a result of this measure. Let us see whether this is likely to take place. May I submit that a society that is getting additional benefit just now would suffer by the withdrawal of those benefits. Is there among the additional benefits that are being granted by the best and presumably well-managed societies, a single one that
could be safely withdrawn without the members of that society suffering in consequence? Let us take these benefits that have been granted by the best-managed societies and let us see which of them can be withdrawn without the insured people suffering, because I want to remind the Committee that all that is proposed in this Amendment is that none of those societies will have to withdraw these additional benefits as a result of this Measure if it becomes an Act of Parliament. As the Government lay it down that they desire that a society or its members should not suffer, then I ask the Committee to bear with me while I explain to them the additional benefits which are now being conferred by the best societies in the country. There is, first of all, the payment of the whole, or in part, of the cost of dental treatment.
Will the Minister of Health, with all his audacity, dare to rise in this House and ask us to believe that the dental service which has been obtained by the insured people of this country as a result of the surpluses of these approved societies has not been one of the greatest national boons that this country has ever secured? It should not be necessary for me to argue this with the Minister of Health. It is the public duty of the Minister of Health to be protecting these people. I can excuse a Minister of War sitting there and acquiescing in this or any representative of the Government other than those who are defending it to-night for putting up a defence of these proposals. But I say it is treachery to the position that the Minister occupies that he should sit there and quietly accept the provisions of the measure before the House. Why, the improvement in health that has been one, of the great features of our national health life during the past 20 years has been due to the recognition of the value of the dentist as a saver of health. The Minister of Health knows, and anyone connected with the Ministry, that it is absolutely impossible for him to have a decent standard of health in this country if the teeth of the people are not properly attended to, and he knows that the economic position of the toiling multitude of this country made it impossible in the past for them to get this essential to good health. For the first time in the history of our country we are able to obtain for the poorest section of our people, through the operation of the
National Health Insurance scheme, what we now know to be one of the elementary necessities of a decent standard of health. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to argue with me, or is he is going to deny, that the members who are deprived of that benefit, who are receiving it now, but because of the impoverishment of their funds by the provision of this Bill will not receive it, will not suffer? Of course they will suffer. The Amendment proposes, among other things, where the additional benefit is paid to-day in the form of dental treatment, that the Minister in future will have power to ensure a continuance of that benefit to a society which finds itself in deficiency as a result of the operation of this Measure. Is that a reasonable request to make, particularly to a right hon. Gentleman charged with the responsibility of protecting the public health of the country?
Let us turn to other matters. I am not now contemplating the additional benefits which were recommended by the Royal Commission. I am leaving out of account the possibility of improvement by this Government. No people in this country with any political knowledge or intelligence expect us to make progress under the present Government. But surely it is not too much to hope after the great war to which the hon. Member refers, after all the hopes that have been raised in the minds of our people during the past twenty years, that the little we have gained should be secured to us until we get a Government in power that has some conception of its duty to the public in regard to the provision of health service. I am not going to deal with the additional benefits which the Royal Commission have in view. I am only going to deal with the benefits which we have now, and which this Amendment seeks to ensure to the people in days to come in so far as they are jeopardised by the operation of this Measure. I have referred to dental treatment. The right hon. Gentlemen and the Parliamentary Secretary are more familiar with the matter than I am, and they have the services of the most enlightened men in the country in this connection. It is from this combination that I want to protect the insured people of the country. These societies give an increase of sickness benefit in the case of all their members or of such of them as have a specified number of children
wholly or partly dependent on them. A society has a surplus and it decides to use it in whole or in part in increasing the weekly benefit from, say, fifteen shillings to eighteen shillings or twenty. Is it too much to ensure to a man who is in this disabled condition even the maximum additional benefit that is being paid by any society in this country? Can you say the working man is being pampered with being guaranteed £1 a week? Is there any temptation there to malingering? The very suggestion is absurd. It makes a person blush for his public activity when he suggests that a person should be paid less than twenty shillings a week no matter how poor. Those men find themselves in the position of spending some of their money in giving this additional benefit. The amendment asks that this £4,700,000 that is to be taken annually from these societies should not be taken at the expense of poor fellows who are getting this additional three shillings a, week. Is there anything unreasonable in that the Government which proposes to take this £4,700,000 either by taking part of it directly or by imposing additional burdens—is there anything unreasonable in that they should be asked to ensure that the man who is to-day getting an additional paltry three shillings a week on his statutory benefit should not suffer as a result of the action of the Government? If there is nothing unreasonable in that, why are the Government not accepting the amendment? These are not future benefits. These are benefits now being secured by people who are assured by the Government that they are not going to suffer as a result of this Bill, and all we ask is that money will be forthcoming for them later when it is necessary.
Let me take another of the benefits which are now being paid. Certain societies are now paying an increase on the maternity benefit. Forty shillings does not go far to-day, as Members on all sides of the House know to their cost; it is not a sum for which we can get anything approximating to the service we could have obtained for it, in pre-War days. We have just passed a Clause which increases the burden for medical benefit on the approved societies by 3s. per head because of the additional value which we have placed to-day on the medical service of the country. But what does this do? This deals with the
societies that are paying the additional maternity benefit. It may be 45s.; I do not know one that is giving 50s. They are giving an additional 5s. to this poor woman in extreme circumstances, in one of the most critical moments of her life, at a moment when all humane people would admit she is rendering a great natural and national service. The societies, inspired by generosity and moved in a manner in which I would wish to see the right hon. Gentleman moved, come to the aid of this poor woman and give her 5s. above the statutory benefit. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I do not want to steal that poor woman's 5s.; I do not want to dirty my hands with the theft of that poor woman's 5s." When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen got up and described it as robbery, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were shocked. They said, "The very last thing we would dream of is robbing the poor of this country." If you take this 5s. you are robbing the poorest and the weakest and the most deserving of the poor. You are robbing in child-bed, in what is often the death-bed, the poor woman to whom 5s. means everything at that moment. The value of that 5s. may mean more to her than we in our circumstances can possibly understand. The circumstances of such a woman are only known to those who have lived that life or those who are living in close and intimate touch with those who are, unfortunately, enduring that life to-day. If I were to ask the right hon. Gentleman to go to the house of that woman and steal 5s. from her he would be shocked at the very suggestion. If he knew a person so possessed of criminal instinct as to go to rob that woman, he would bring all the forces of the Crown to defend that woman against the intended robbery.
What are we asking here? The right hon. Gentleman comes forward, and again let me repeat, he proposes to confiscate a part of the fund from which this additional 5s. is being paid. Yet it is not robbery; it is merely a transfer. To my friends of the Socialist movement, who believe you can only get out of our present difficulties as the days go by through confiscation, I am going to say that that word is not a, Parliamentary word. I am going to say that by the transfer of their extra wealth from the
people who have more than they need to the people who require it, it will be only transferred, and, if I am asked whether, if, as a result of the transfer, they should suffer in the future, I would be prepared to come to their assistance. I will say, "Well, if I am to accept the precedent of a Conservative Government, I cannot give any promise of the kind, because when they went to transfer the money of this poor woman, to transfer the fund out of which perhaps her maintenance in life has been secured, and when I asked if in the event of the fund being insufficient in the future, as result of this, to give to this woman the 5s. that she is getting to-day, will you see that she is compensated for the loss caused by your confiscatory Act of Parliament, they said they cannot give any such promise." I hope the Socialist movement in its day will be more generous to the rich than the Conservative Government is this morning to the poor
Let me take another benefit, and I think this is one that I might reasonably expect even the present Government to guarantee. Certain societies to-day make allowances to members during convalescence from disease or disablement in respect of which sickness benefit or disablement benefit has been payable. We know this does not always take the form of cash paid to the insured person. It is very frequently a grant to a convelescent home or, it might be, to a hospital. The approved societies of this country have been exemplary in the expenditure of their public funds, and I wish to God all the individuals of this country could accept the example of the friendly societies in the administration of their surplus wealth. Part of the outlet for there surplus has been the assistance of convalescent homes or hospitals in which their members obtain treatment. Is anyone going to say that a society is not going to suffer if this is withdrawn? The whole nation is going to suffer. We are living in a country where these institutions are maintained mainly by voluntary contributions. This is not a Government which comes forward and says, "We are going to ensure to the people of this country in the future efficient and adequate convalescent institutions." This is a Government that is going to leave the whole maintenance of these institutions to the generosity of
voluntary contributors, and among the voluntary contributors are the approved societies. Again, it gives us an example of what should be our conduct towards our less fortunate brethren. It would be a loss to the whole nation to weaken the position of these institutions. The Amendment says you should not rob the hospitals, you should not rob the convalescent homes, and you should not rob the disabled persons. You are taking today this huge sum out of the funds from which these contributions are now met. Is there anyone, with, I will not say a spark of human feeling but with any sense of duty towards hospitals and convalescent homes who is prepared to argue that it is unreasonable to ask that they should be insured out of the money that is now being taken from approved societies. Let me take just one or two other examples of the present benefits, and I am sorry that it has been necessary for me to address the House on this question. I can assure hon. Members I have not been recently too fond of troubling the House for good reasons and I would have preferred if I could have escaped a duty not to intervene in this discussion. But I could not honourably, in view of the fact, that I was to a large extent responsible indirectly for the provisions in the Bill, even at a risk of physical suffering, refrain from participating in the discussion. I would have liked to have refrained and I am not asking for any special indulgence. But the obligation, as I said, was put on me to take part in the discussion, and then through conduct which will redound not to the credit of business I was refused the opportunity to give my views, and compelled to give them in instalments during the course of discussion. I do not, however, want to prolong the discussion on this Amendment. It is a very important Amendment, and I have no doubt there are Members in all parts of the House, when they realise the obligations of this Clause, when they appreciate the merits of this Amendment—in all parts of the House, among my friends here, among the party below the Gangway, and among Members on the Government side, if any freedom of thought and action remains on the Government side—there are many Members who would like to discuss this in the light that has been thrown on its implications in the discussion up to now. So I will refer only briefly to two other
points that arise in relation to the Amendment and to this particular Clause.
One of the additional benefits that has been given, which I personally and I am sure many Members of the House can appreciate, is optical treatment and appliances. It is only those of us who for one reason or another are mostly on this side of the House through unfortunate early circumstances carry with us the indelible mark of that early suffering in shortsightedness and if proper appliances had been supplied to us in those years it would have meant a great deal. I will ask those on this side of the House who are particularly interested in industrial questions to appreciate what this optical treatment and the provision of optical appliances means for the industrial population who come under the National Health Insurance scheme. The War was won not merely by the physical fit; to a large extent it was won by the physical defective, by the people who were shortsighted and who from their infancy suffered from disabilities. The War was won by these men and women who had to go into the workshops and they had to take the place of those men and women who had gone to the front. The approved societies are rendering a real national service in spending their money on these benefits and the Amendment asks that they should be guaranteed in the future. That is a reasonable request to make to the Minister of Health. I would blush if I were in his place and I will go so far as to say that he is secretly ashamed of the Measure that his position in the Government compels him to defend. Let me take the last point. Some societies to-day are providing surgical appliances to their members out of their surplus funds. I could quote language that might perhaps be regarded as sob-stuff to describe the effect of the bestowal of these appliances on the poorest class of our people. It would be impossible to describe their feelings. It makes all the difference between great hardship and existence under ordinary standards of comfort. Let me take again the simile I asked the House to imagine. If you asked the Minister of Health to go into Whitehall to-morrow and rob an afflicted person of his appliance would he do it? He would not. But this Bill will rob tens of thousands of people more
effectually than he would have been able to do in the streets of London. If the right hon. Gentleman is not secretly ashamed of having to occupy that position then all my feeling of contempt at his action to-night is increased at a man who has the character to carry out a policy such has been laid down in the Bill.
Several hon. Members having risen to continue the Debate—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place and claimed to move"That the Question be now put,"but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I make no apology for intervening in the discussion of a Measure which undoubtedly reduces benefits conferred by a Measure which I had the privilege of carrying through this House a great many years ago. I was greatly moved by the catalogue of benefits in that Measure in the very able speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). This is a very important Amendment raising a very important issue. An Amendment of a similar character was to have been moved earlier in the course of the proceedings but for the intervention of the Closure. It is a vital issue that is to be decided, and it is this: On the present occasion the Government are talking of reducing the contribution of the State. They are going to take no further action to stabilise at any rate the additional benefits which have been declared. I made some inquiries as to the form of the objections raised by the Minister of Health to the form of this Amendment, and really it was not quite a fair answer. The form of the Amendment is neither here nor there. What matters is the substance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not object to the form of the Amendment, but to the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: "Form" is perhaps hardly the word I ought to use. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that the Amendment which has been moved would have certain effects. I think the argument he used was that it might stabilise benefits in societies which were badly managed. It was something to that effect. If that be the case I quite agree that no Amendment ought
to be carried to stabilise bad management and guarantee benefits to societies which are badly managed, but the Government have the discretion and the Minister has perfect discretion even in the Clause to deal with a case of that kind. If the Amendment is not strong enough, I have no doubt nobody would object to words being introduced to meet the case. The form of the Amendment is not the point. The point is that where benefits have already been declared and distributed, benefits of the kind enumerated very eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston who has just sat down, there should he some guarantee on the part of the Government—a word from the Minister at any rate, that the Government will see that through the action of this Bill members of societies are not to be deprived of benefits which have already been declared. Is it really too much to ask the Government? They want £2,800,000. That has been voted already, and I cannot discuss it any longer at the present stage, but there ought to be some exceptions, some reservations, some guarantees. The societies are honestly anxious as to the benefits they have already declared with the consent of the Ministers. There is not an additional benefit declared which has not been declared without submission to the Minister. That is my recollection. They cannot declare an additional benefit except upon the issue of a certificate of the Minister of Health.
Here is the word of a Minister of the Crown, speaking on behalf of the nation, of the Sovereign, of Parliament—a certificate signed by him that this additional benefit shall be granted. Is it too much to ask that that pledge shall be honoured, that this shall not be treated as a scrap of paper; that when actual benefits have been declared, certified, signed, that at any rate the Government will say: We will see that through no action of ours on this Bill will these benefits be withdrawn? I think I have quoted to-night the case of a society that says that within four or five years they will be bound to withdraw benefits that have been already declared. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that something which the right hon. Gentleman, with his record, his very great record of work in this line in his own city, who has manifested sympathy with action of this kind and has never taken a narrow view, and with his
hereditary sympathy—is it too much for him to declare that even in an Economy Bill he will not dishonour a certificate, not of his own, but of anybody who has signed on behalf of this great country. Leaving alone all these questions of economy—and it will not effect much economy—nobody asks him to guarantee against insolvency men who have not handled their affairs properly, but to guarantee men who have managed their business thoroughly against insolvency attributable to the direct action of the Government despite the protest of 15 millions of people who, without any submission to their judgment, are being thus treated. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts the Amendment in its present form or not, that he will guarantee that through no action of the Government will there be any withdrawal of benefit already declared?

4.0 A.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been severely criticised for having taken a certain course. I have endeavoured always to give every facility for discussion of a serious character.

The CHAIRMAN: The remark of the right hon. Gentleman seems to indicate that he proposes to defend himself, but if he wishes to do so I shall have to allow other hon. Members to reply.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Do we speak in this House at the goodwill of or as a privilege conceded by the Ministers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I say no more. As I was impugned I thought perhaps I might have been allowed to make some response. I address myself to the excuses to which we have just listened. I would point out to the Committee that the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has not touched on the main point of my objection to this Amendment. I feel that he did not realise the full force of my objection. It would create an injustice between one Society and another, and the injustice would favour the badly managed Society at the expense of the better managed Society. Let me make clear the principal point of my objection. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) appeals to me not to do anything that would dishonour pledges
given by my predecessors in respect of surpluses on valuations. I say there is nothing that would affect these benefits. They are declared in respect of surpluses arising out of a certain quinquennial period. The benefits are not thereupon declared for all time but for a further quinquennial period, and it it only during that quinquennial period that there is anything that can be called a pledge on the part of the Minister. If these benefits are declared for a period of five years, then it is only for that period that they are declared. In the following period you will have to deal with surpluses arising out of that period. What the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has been asking me is something quite different from that. We are not touching any pledge that can possibly have been given by my predecessor. What he wants me to do is to give some sort of pledge on behalf of my successor. When he argues that by reason of the reduction in the State contribution the surpluses that would be available for distribution by way of benefits in 1931 would not be as great as they would have been if we had not withdrawn the contribution, that, of course is a self evident proposition. But I do not accept the statement of the gentleman who wrote on behalf of some rural workers' society in Scotland; I say it is much too soon to be able to say what he will be able to do in 1931. The actuaries are themselves unable to say. What we do know is that while there is on the one hand this reduction in the State contribution, on the other hand there are various other factors —the rate of interest, the increasing amount and proportion of their funds on which that rate of interest is earned, the increasing number of contributors that may be expected in a year. I disclaim altogether the statement that has been attributed either to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary or myself that nobody will have any less in the way of surplus or assets by reason of the fact that the State is going to reduce its contribution.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Or benefits withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Or benefits withdrawn. All I say is that it is quite impossible to lay down to-day whether the benefits on the next valuation will be
equivalent to those on the last. These surpluses must be of fluctuating amounts, quite apart from this Bill or anything the Government might do. There are varying circumstances arising which do not remain the same from one year to another. If the circumstances vary then the surpluses vary. What might happen at the next valuation it is quite impossible to say at present. It is, therefore, asking something that has never been contemplated, to ask that additional benefits should be in the same position as if they were statutory benefits. This Amendment has that effect. We must remember that, under this Amendment, a number of societies would be thrown into nominal deficiency by reason of the fact that their surpluses on the third valuation are not equal to those on the second. That may be due, it is true, to the withdrawal of the State contribution, but it may also be due, or due entirely, to a laxness of management, but even if it is due to a laxness on the part of the society, does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, automatically, the deficiency which could be attributed to the Government contribution will be payable to that society and consequently its surplus would not be lower at the third valuation?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would like to ask this question: It is clear from the actuaries' report that the provisions of this Bill are likely to throw into actual deficiency 10 per cent. of the societies. In addition to that, it has been rendered clear by this Debate that a number of other societies which will not actually be put into deficiency will in 1931 be put into a state when they will be unable to pay the additional benefit which they have paid up till now. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the general condition of the societies is likely to be so much better in 1931 that there will he very few in that position. According to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) the condition of the societies in general is likely to be so much worse that many of them are going to he deprived of additional benefits in 1931. Supposing that conditions remain otherwise pretty much the same, can the right hon. Gentleman, give us any idea of the proportion of societies which are likely to have to deprive their members of additional benefits owing to the provisions of this
Bill? Can he give us or get from the Government actuaries at a later stage of the Debate any figures which will give us any idea of the number of societies that will have to bring about a diminution of additional benefits in 1931 owing to the provisions of this Bill? Will it be 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., or can he give us any idea?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously I could not give any answer to that question now. I doubt whether the actuaries could give it, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. THOMAS: I agree entirely that so far as the first and second valuations are concerned no one will be affected. That is common agreement. This Amendment is asking that if as a result of the third valuation and the Government actuary in taking this money a particular society is affected or an individual member of a society, then that should be guaranteed to him. But the right hon. Gentleman says that so far as his experience goes there is no guarantee that there may be a surplus on any society on the third valuation. That is true that there is no guarantee. He is perfectly entitled to say that nobody can say actually that there will be. What he cannot say is this. The first valuation showed a very good surplus. The second valuation showed a much larger surplus, and surely the very effect of the National Insurance Act on the general health presupposes that there will be a greater surplus on the third valuation. But if that is so it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say "No, we cannot say what that surplus will be." What he can say is that, whatever it is, it must be nearly £4,000,000 less than it otherwise would have been were it not for this Bill. I would ask the Minister this. Amendments not of a flimsy character, Amendments have been put down not only in the name of the party but at the request of the insured people—and most of the Amendments which have been put down on this side of the Committee are Amendments which the approved societies themselves urged on the party—and not to one of those Amendments, no matter what the nature or how strongly pressed or what has been said in its favour, has a solitary concession been made of any sort or kind by the Minister. I venture to think that this is going to have a disastrous effect. Every amending Bill before this has been
discussed, negotiated and argued out with representative people long before the House of Commons had an opportunity for discussing it. But in this case the representatives have been denied their opportunity and when we have put in on their behalf a case and a plea for further consideration, I think we are entitled to say to the Government that they are not treating us quite fairly. Does it mean that this extraordinary precedent is to be established that whatever the will of the House of Commons may be, however strong a case may be put forward, the Bill must go through? It leaves the impression that desperate as the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be, he is despotic as well.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I heard a Conservative Member a week ago on a public platform rather ingeniously try to defend this Bill. He argued that the Government had taken a certain sum of money for reducing the grant and that its real effect was that the Government, instead of paying out money to approved societies are taking the money just now, but in three or four years' time they will give it back and it is merely a business proposition to use this capital. That was his defence, and as I listened to it I thought there was at least the semblance of a case. He said, "The Government need this money more than the friendly societies, and we will see that not a single friendly society member suffers as a result." I thought the Government had at least a case to take the money, and when I saw this Amendment I said this Member and his colleagues will at least support our view. If the real reason is that the Government is only temporarily harassed and has a greater need of the money than the friendly societies or the approved societies, and if their real intention is to repay the money, surely they will support our Amendment by making it a statutory obligation for the Government to give the benefits. Surely if the Government are only taking the money at the moment because of dire financial necessity on the part of the nation, they will at least in a statutory way secure the benefits, but when we ask them to do it they say, "This is a penalty, and if we are to carry the Amendment we are putting a penalty on the best managed societies and assisting those that are
worst managed." But, after all, the principle of helping the worst managed societies is already accepted. Under this scheme they say: We will give every society at least the standard benefits. I know societies that I think might be better out of existence altogether. I think the locality that they try to cover is hopeless of giving good management, and it would be much better if they were incorporated in some of the bigger societies. These societies have never paid a surplus, and never will; but under this Clause they are not in the least affected, and they are going to be guaranteed the same benefits as they have paid and would always be likely to pay whether this Act comes or goes. They are inefficiently managed, but they are going to be guaranteed. The Minister of Health says we have already guaranteed all the inefficient societies that cannot now pay a surplus, but when we come along and ask him to guarantee the efficient societies, he says: we cannot give it to them, because it will create a differentiation. I cannot follow his reasoning. I have in mind at the moment one badly managed society. Along side of it I know another group of people who manage a society extremely well. Tremendous voluntary effort is being put into it, and the result is that it has accumulated a fairly large surplus. The other society has never paid a surplus, and never will under its present form of management. Yet it is guaranteed its benefits. The Government say: "We will pay them the statutory benefits they have always been able to pay." But to this other efficient society they come along and say: "We will not guarantee you any benefits, because we might assist this other society." I confess that the Minister of Health's logic and his understanding of the Amendment were altogether wrong.
I want to press one of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). He dealt with many things, including the questions of maternity allowances and convalescent homes. I represent possibly one of the poorest places in the poor parts of the country. I suppose I have more slum dwellers and possibly more unemployment than most Members have to represent, and in this division I have a young brother who now practises as a doctor
with a fairly good panel practice in my district. Take maternity benefits. Five shillings is not looked upon as very much here, but to these people five shillings is a tremendous amount. Nobody can calculate it, and if 15s. is reduced to 10s. it means the difference between butter and margarine, the difference between good milk and bad milk. I said to a colleague of mine, also a doctor, that I am surprised at the medical profession in this House not making a greater fight on this Amendment than they are putting up at the moment. You go to the poor homes where already poverty is telling its tale, and we ought to be considering how to increase the amount from 45s. to a greater amount, and not decreasing it. You are going to make the task of the ordinary doctor in a poor district, which is already a hard task a harder task than ever he has had before. After all, the doctor is merely an agent. If the patient cannot get decent food and decent medicine and decent other things, the doctor might as well not be there at all, and here you are taking away this income which would go to provide the food. My own union pay, I think, 45s., and we pay in addition three shillings or four shillings extra sick benefit. I always went on the principle that I ought to insure not only with an ordinary trade union, but with a friendly society, because I think a man who is sick and wants to be well ought to have as big an income when he is sick as when he is employed, because the first thing to get a man better is the knowledge that those with whom he is living are not impaired by his illness. Therefore, until I came to this House, I was fairly heavily mortgaged in friendly societies for an income for sick benefit. Take my own union. We give, I think, 4s. a week extra sick benefit, and we have done it through competent management. Now we come along to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary has made whatever good side he has to his reputation by his association with friendly societies, and here he is going to desert the very people who have given him the standing that he has in public life. He is going to desert them at the most critical time when they need his help. I remember when he was in opposition and we formed the Government.
I do not want to impute base motives, for I am always following the example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) who always tries to avoid hard words and harsh sayings. The hon. Member (Sir Kingsley Wood) when he was in opposition always thought he was an agent on behalf of the approved societies; he always wanted to know what we were doing here and there, and yet here is this man, whom you would always think was the paid advocate of the approved societies coming along and striking a most deadly blow at these particular approved societies. Many unions have started as one of the new benefits, dental treatment, and for many reasons what do we find? We find that that the members are appreciating the dental treatment in a most remarkable fashion. This benefit cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. It means giving to the nation a better type of men and women. When you allow the income of a sick man to fall you lessen his chance of benefit. It means, in many cases, that it is affecting the nation in some other way. If you take away three shillings from a man erning 24s., what happens in many cases? He is transferred to the Poor Law, and this is no great saving, but simply transferring a national burden on to a local burden. Therefore, as the Minister of Health knows well, the prevention of these things is far better than cure. Ministers of Health, Tory, Liberal, Labour and Coalition, have laid it down that prevention of disease carried into effect is far better. I read a speech about eight months ago of the Chairman of the National Association of Friendly Societies, and they were discussing a very important point, whether they should in their new valuation increase the amount of sick benefit pay or go in for a new preventive treatment—surgical appliances, dental treatment or optical treatment. The great line of all health authorities ought to be on the lines of preventing sickness before the natural definite sickness occurs, and so in the prevention of disease. They were coming along in this great salvage work, and the approved societies had set themselves out in the same way. The Minister of Health should say to the approved societies, "Go on with your work; you have accom-
plished marvellous work. We will secure to you that after 1931 none of your useful work will be in the slightest way limited." Surely that is not too much to ask. At least you should secure the surgical and dental treatment and the subscriptions to the convalescent homes. I hope the Minister of Health will accept this very mild Amendment. If he cannot regard it in cash benefit, let him accept it in regard to dental treatment and surgical appliances. Some concession can be made. We are not asking for much. All we are asking is that the health of the nation ought to be one of the first charges of the nation, and ought to be cared for

properly and well. Let the Minister of Health accept the Amendment and thus show to the House and to the country that his reign in connection with this— while not giving us all we want—is a spirit of conciliation. I hope he will accept this mild and meagre Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That Question be no w put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 104.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[4.39 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rice, Sir Frederick


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Atkinson, C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ropner, Major L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bethel, A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Blades, sir George Rowland
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sandon, Lord


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Jacob, A. E.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Burman, J. B.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzor, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
KinlochCooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macquisten, F. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Manninham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Meller, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Dixey, A. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Drewe, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel sir Joseph
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Neville, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Goff, Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Perring, Sir William George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Grant, J. A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Philipson, Mabel
Wragg, Herbert


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, William



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raine, W.
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thurtle, E.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Day, Colonel Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dennison, R.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Dunnico, H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Fenby, T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Scurr, John
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Grundy, T. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Question put accordingly "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 163.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[4.48 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Joan


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thurtle, E.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Day, Colonel Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dennison, R.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Dunnico, H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Fenby, T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Scurr, John
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Grundy, T. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Atkinson, C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Balniel, Lard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ropner, Major L.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles, Brise, Major E. A.


Bethel, A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Blundell, F. N.
Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sandon, Lord


Briscoe, Richard George
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nowb'y)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Jacob, A. E.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Smith, R. W, (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Malone, Major P. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Dixey, A. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Drewe, C
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Williams. A. M. (Cornwell, Northern)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Neville, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Goff, Sir Park
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Grant, J. A.
Perring, Sir William George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wragg, Herbert


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Philipson, Mabel
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 106.

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
[4.59. a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col, sir George L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.-H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Balniel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Bethel, A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Blundell, F. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Dixey, A. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Chapman, Sir S
Drewe, C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eden, Captain Anthony


Briscoe, Richard George
Couper, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Shepperson, E. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.
Skelton, A. N.


Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Malone, Major P. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grant, J. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. C. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harrison, G. J. C.
Neville, R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nuttall, Ellis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)


Haslam, Henry C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perring, Sir William George
Tinne, J. A.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, G (Somerset, Frome)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hills, Major John Walter
Philipson, Mabel
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wells, S. R.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Preston, William
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Radford, E. A.
White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dairymple


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jacob, A. E.
Ropner, Major L.
Wise, Sir Fredric


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rye, F. G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Salmon, Major I.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wragg, Herbert


Loder, J. de v.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lougher, L.
Sandon, Lord



Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Savery, S. S,
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lumley, L. R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Major Cope and Captain Margessson.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sullivan, Joseph


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thurtle, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Day, Colonel Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dennison, R.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dunnico, H.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don valley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Fenby, T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Scurr, John
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Warne.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Question put accordingly: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 105.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[5.10. a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Breton & Rad.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Atkinson, C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Major L.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Haslam, Henry C.
Rye, F. G.


Bethel, A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Blundell, F. N.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sandon, Lord


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shepperson, E. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Huntingfield, Lord
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Jacob, A. E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.)
Loder, J. D. V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lougher, L.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Templeton, W. P.


Couper, J. B.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Ht. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Malone, Major P. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Meyer, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixey, A. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Neville, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Goff, Sir Park
Perring, Sir William George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wragg, Herbert


Grant, J. A.
Philipson, Mabel
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Power, Sir John Cecil



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Preston, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Radford, E. A.
Captain Margesson and Captain Viscount Curzon.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dennison, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barnes, A.
Dunnico, H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barr, J.
Fenby, T, D.
Kelly, W. T.


Batey, Joseph
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Kennedy, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George


Broad, F. A
Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James


Bromley, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.


Buchanan, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morris, R. H.


Clowes, S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Cluse, W. S.
Hardie, George D.
Owen, Major G.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)
Purcell, A. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)




Ritson, J.
Sullivan, Joseph
Wiggins, William Martin


Scurr, John
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Shaw, Bt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shiels, Dr, Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Windsor, Walter


Sitch, Charles H.
Varley, Frank B.
Wright, W.


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Viant, S. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Walsh, Ht. Hon. Stephen



Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snell, Harry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.


Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, W.



Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 68 of principal Act.)

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have reached a stage when we ought not to proceed any further. I desire to draw attention to the last situation created. There will be no one from the Front Bench, I presume, who will suggest that on the discussion of the last Clause any attempt was made to deal with the merits of the case fairly and honestly. Curiously enough, one of the most vital Amendments to this particular Clause was, by the action of the Minister, most deliberately excluded.

Mr. D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask what is the Motion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to move directly.

Mr. THOMAS: The position is this, that, in addition to the other powers taken, a discretion is given to the Minister in the Clause to deal with particular approved societies, and not only to deal with them, but to give a certificate which is, as we believe, of importance to the benefit of the people. There was an Amendment on these grounds to be moved. We were denied absolutely the right to discuss it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he cannot find fault with the Minister for moving the Closure.

Mr. THOMAS: It rather indicates that we have reached a stage where it is impossible to give effective consideration to this Bill. It cannot be doubted that this is an important Bill. It affects 15,000,000 people.

Mr. HERBERT: On the point of Order. Do I understand that the right
hon. Gentleman has as yet moved his Motion. If not I wish to ask if he is entitled to make a long speech when there is no Question before the House and in anticipation of what is intended to be moved?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I shall be able to keep the right hon. Gentleman in order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I wish to ask your ruling, whether it is in order for a hon. Member of this House on a point of Order to cast a reflection on the Chairman. The point I wish to make is that the hon. Member who raised the point of Order cast a reflection on the Chair in so far as he sought to create the impression that you, Sir, could not conduct the business. May I ask hon. Members to refrain from making reflections on the Chair?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not take the hon. Member's remarks as casting any reflection at all.

Mr. THOMAS: In various ways, as indicated by different speeches yesterday and to-day, the anxiety has been expressed that such an important subject should be discussed when Members are fresh. We have been her since 2.45 yesterday afternoon, and we took Parliamentary business, but at 5.35 I think we are entitled to support for the Motion I now make to report Progress.

Mr. HERBERT: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already done so once to-night, and I submit under the Standing Orders that he cannot do so again.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Under the Standing Orders he is not able to move it on the same question.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think we are entitled, in accordance with the practice
of this House, certainly at half-past five in the morning, to ask the Minister what his intentions are and whether they are honourable. The Bill has been carried successfully right up to this stage, and think the Minister might, now that he is going to inflict the same punishment on his supporters to-night, let the House go now. There are a good many questions which could be discussed upon Clause 4. or rather there are matters to be elucidated which are not very clear at all; and I know a little about the Act. It would surely be fair, under the circumstances, to assent to the proposal before the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is a master of seduction and I must be on my guard, but seeing that in the last hour or so the Committee has made considerable progress in the Bill I certainly think it would not be necessary to sit very much longer. Therefore I suggest that we should finish Clause 4 and then report progress. The right hon. Gentleman says there are a number of points in Clause 4 that require elucidation and we shall be happy to give any explanation required.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the Committee appreciates the change that has taken place in the attitude of the two right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill. If he had displayed the same conciliatory spirit in the earlier part of the proceedings the discussions of this House would have been carried on in a more friendly tone and probably to the advantage of the Measure and the tempers of all concerned. I can only remark that the Government's own supporters are the most sickly looking lot it has been my experience to witness.
Might I press the Minister of Health to go a little further on the course which he has adopted. As the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has explained, this is a very important Clause. Indeed, the whole Bill is of first class importance and, I should say, particularly this Clause. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is fair to the fifteen millions of people who are involved that we should at this time of the morning, after the numerous and long journeys we have been subjected to through the Division lobbies and with loads of Scotch porridge in our stomachs, enter into a discussion of this im-
portance. I would therefore appeal to the Minister of Health to accept the Motion that has been submitted to the House and allow us to have a few minutes rest so that we may return to our work refreshed and capable of devoting to this important section the consideration which it deserves. I am sure that it would facilitate the passage of the Bill if, even at this late hour, the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the reasonable request contained in the Motion.

Question put,"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Captain GARRO-JONES: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. While I have every sympathy with the hon. Members who desire to delay the passage of this Bill, I have an Amendment to propose to the next Clause, and I wish to ask you if there is any method by which you, Sir, can expedite the completion of this Division.

The CHAIRMAN: We will await the progress of events.

Mr. THURTLE: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. In view of the prolonged period of this Division, may I ask whether the Committee is now stymied or bunkered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Can you Sir, direct the Tellers to ascertain who is wilfully obstructing the business of the House, and then deal with them under Standing Order 18?

The CHAIRMAN: I must have some further information as to who, if any, is obstructing. The Tellers for the Noes handed in their numbers at the Table in the ordinary course quite 25 minutes, or more, ago. The Tellers for the Ayes have not made their report as to the numbers passing through the Aye Lobby. In these circumstances, I must ask the Serjeant-at-Arms, who is responsible for order in the Lobbies, to ascertain from the Tellers why they are not in a position to report the numbers in the Aye Lobby, and to report, if any, Members who are in the Aye Lobby decline to pass the Tellers. I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to ascertain that, and to report accordingly.

The ASSISTANT SERJEANT-AT-ARMS: announced that 13 Members refused to pass the Tellers in the Aye Lobby.

The CHAIRMAN: I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to ascertain from the Tellers the names of the said Members and to report accordingly.

The SERJEANT-AT-ARMS: announced that the following Members had so refused: Mr. Dunnico, Scurr, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Purcell, Mr. Taylor, Colonel Day, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Compton, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Hardie.

The CHAIRMAN: Under Standing Order No. 18, I have to name Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Scurr, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Purcell, Mr. Taylor, Colonel Day, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Compton, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Hardie for having abused the Rules of the House, by persistently and wilfully obstructing the Business of the House. I suspend the Proceedings of the Committee, and will make my Report to the House.

The CHAIRMAN: then left the Chair, to make his Report to the House.

Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I have to report that the following Members of this House have abused the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, namely, having gone into the Lobby to vote and refusing to come through and pass the Tellers—Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Scurr, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Purcell, Mr. Taylor, Colonel Day, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Compton, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Hardie. I make this Report under Standing Order No. 18.

Mr. SPEAKERrose—

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of order can arise.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not competent for Members to ask whether this Standing Order applies in this case?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have a Report from the Chairman of Committees that certain Members of the Committee have been persistently obstructing the business of the House. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] Under Standing Order No. 18, it is quite clear that hon. Members have abused the Rules of the House by wilfully obstructing the business of the House or otherwise.

Mr. THURTLE: May we not ask whether there has been persistence in this case, and also whether we can be told what Rules of the House have been broken by these hon. Members?

Mr. MORRIS: May I ask whether in this case the offence having been committed in the Lobby, it comes within the words"within the House"in Standing Order No. 18?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly; the Lobby is part of the House for the purpose of this Standing Order.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask if we can discover how the Chairman has obtained the names of these, individuals in the Lobby?

Mr. MORRIS: May I draw attention to a ease reported in Erskine May, where an offence was committed in the Lobby, and complaint being made Mr. Speaker on that occasion ruled that as the offence was committed in the Lobby it was for the House itself to decide?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter of obstruction of the business of the House.

Mr. THURTLE: Will you rule whether or not there has been persistence in this case?

Mr. BARR: May I ask whether any warning, has been conveyed to these hon. Members, as in every case where there has been a suspension of any kind, and whether, in spite of that warning, they have persisted? Has any kind of intimation been made to them? I certainly heard none, and I was in the House all the time.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am informed that the Committee waited for hon. Members to return from the Division for a period of over half an hour.

Mr. BARR: Is it not in accordance with the tradition of this House that there,
should he some warning given from the Chair?

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Scurr, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Purcell, Mr. Taylor, Colonel Day, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Compton, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Hardie be suspended from the service of the House."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Several HON. MEMBERSrose—

Mr. SPEAKER: No discussion can arise. I am bound to put the Question.

The House proceeded to a Division; and the Tellers for the Ayes leaving returned to the House, Mr. Speaker, after an interval, directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to call the Tellers for the Noes to the Table.

The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes 76.

Division No. 145.]
AYES.
[6.42. a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rice, Sir Frederick


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Atkinson, C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ropner, Major L.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rugyles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bethel, A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rye, F. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Brass, Captain W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hops, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Brocklebank, C, E. R.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C, R. I.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Huntingfield, Lord
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Burman, J. B.
Jacob, A. E.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Kerbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chadwick Sir Robert Burton
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A (Birm.,W.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N, (Ladywood)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lougher, L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cope, Major William
Lumley, L. R.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Templeton, W. P.


Courthope, Lieut. Col. Sir George L.
McLean, Major A.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macquisten, F. A.
Thornton, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Malone, Major P. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wallace, Captain O. E.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Capt. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. N.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Meller, R. J.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meyer, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Dixey, A. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Drewe, C.
Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Neville, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Ht. Hon. Earl


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fraser, Captain Ian
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Goff, Sir Park
Perring, Sir William George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grant, J. A.
Philipson, Mabel
Wragg, Herbert


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N
Power, Sir John Cecil
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Preston, William



Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Badford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and Major Sir H. Barnston.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)



Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, F. A.
Cluse, W. S


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromley, J.
Cove, W. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Barr, J.
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Batey, Joseph
Charleton, H. C.
Dennison, R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clowes, S.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Townend, A. E.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Warns, G, H.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Whitelay, W.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snort, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, C H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Windsor, Walter


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry



John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.


Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph



Kennedy, T.

Mr. SPEAKER: then directed Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Scurr, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Purcell, Mr. Taylor, Colonel Day, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Compton, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Hardie. to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly.

Mr. THOMAS: You, Sir, were not present in the House when the incident reported to you took place. I was prevented from taking part in the Debate because it had been put without. Question. But I do submit to you that those who have been named to you, and by your decision suspended, were following precedent set not only in one but in scores of Debates, and feeling they were justified in doing that, is there any precedent for the unwarrantable course taken in the suspension of them?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order is quite clear. The Question has to be put without Amendment or Debate. All I will say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, is that I have no concern with the proceedings in Committee. I deal only with the matter that is reported to me. My own action in summoning the Tellers to the Table was to deal with a new emergency. I shall always think it right to use my powers in this Chair to deal with events that may not be specifically provided for in thy Standing Orders.
But, in accordance a with precedent, I shall take the earliest opportunity of consulting with the Leader of the House as to whether some action should be taken to make provision for these circumstances. I think that is the dignified and orderly way of dealing
with the occasion. The right hon. Gentleman will then have an opportunity of raising the question if an Amendment to Standing Orders be proposed.

Mr. THOMAS: I should certainly be the last to challenge your ruling on the matter. It is because you could not possibly know all the circumstances, and of necessity had to act, that I do respectfully put to you that an opportunity ought to be given for you, Sir, to know exactly the circumstances in connection with the case.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, the Committee will resume, and the Division that was not concluded will be taken over again. The Committee will resume.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that there is some suggestion that the whole of this difficult matter of procedure may be and ought to be discussed. As you, Sir, very well know, this is not the first time that this has happened in this House, and I should like to know whether the question can be put to you or to the Government, whether art opportunity will be given to the Members to discuss it, not only on what has happened to-night, but in reference to similar incidents in which hon. Gentlemen over there have taken part.

Mr. THOMAS: Do I understand that there will be an opportunity to discuss this question?

Mr. SPEAKER: All I can say is that. I shall consider it my duty to consult the Leader of the House as to the proper way of dealing with this matter. I think the
House will be content to leave the matter there. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] I have dealt with this matter as I think right, and in accordance with the Rules of the House. I would beg the House to accept the situation.

Mr. MAXTON: No, no! We cannot allow this to pass! On a point of Order. [Interruption.]

Bill again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee proceeded to a Division..

The Tellers for the Noes having returned to the House, the Chairman, after an interval, directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to call the Tellers for the Ayes to the Table.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 162.

Division No. 146.]
AYES.
[7.8. a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Stephen, Campbell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sullivan, Joseph


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thurtle, E.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Townend, A. E.


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dennison, R.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Gillett, George M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Warne and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hartington, Marquess of


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bethel, A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major John Waller


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holt, Captain H. P.


Blundell, F. N.
Dixey, A. C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Drewe, C,
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Briscoe, Richard George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jacob, A. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C (Berks, Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Ian
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Burman, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Grant, J. A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Loder, J. O. V.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lougher, L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lumley, L. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cope, Major William
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Couper, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McLean, Major A.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Malone, Major P. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tinne, J. A.


Margesson, Captain D.
Rye, F. G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sandon, Lord
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Han. B. M.
Savory, S. S.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Neville, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Skelton, A. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wise, Sir Fredric


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Womersley, W. J.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Perring, Sir William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Philipson, Mabel
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wragg, Herbert


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Preston, William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang



Radford, E. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Raine, W.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord Stanley.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



Rice, Sir Frederick
Templeton, W. P.

Mr. THOMAS: I am going to make an appeal to the Government.

The CHAIRMAN: After the decision of the Committee, I cannot accept another Motion immediately.

Mr. THOMAS: You ought, Mr. Chairman, to be relieved of that responsibility. I am entitled to ask the Government whether, having regard to all the circumstances, they consider it is wise to go on with this Bill at this stage. We are at Clause. 4. It is admitted that it is an important Bill. It must be admitted that the incident which I am not allowed to discuss in itself renders it impossible for adequate justice to be done to the Debate. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot possibly gain anything, and that it would be in the best interests of the House if he himself would move the Adjournment.

The CHAIRMAN: Captain Garro-Jones.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Before I move this Amendment, I submit to you that Clause 3 has not yet been passed by this Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentlemen is in error.

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. May I ask whether Clause 3 has been passed by the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: It has been passed, and due record has been taken of it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out the word"twenty-seven", and to insert instead thereof the word"thirty."
I hope when the hon. Member gets up to reply to my remarks he will be good enough to tell the Committee exactly what sums are involved in Clause 4, Subsection (1), what exactly is the purpose of shifting the charge from the Government to the approved societies, and what justification he can bring for making them bear this charge. I also wish him to explain by what method he will compute what proportion of the cost of insurance stamps is attributable to the National Health Insurance, and what proportion to the old age pensions, and other charges. How far is this principle going to be extended? Have the Government any intention of charging the inspectorate fees which are at, present borne by the Government on the approved societies? It seems to me there is as much justification for shifting these administrative charges. The amount seems to be a small one. I find myself amazed at the mean devices to which the Government have been compelled to resort to save a few pounds at the cost always of these poor people. The Government seem to vote alternately Measures of gross extravagance and petty mean Measures like this. We had them making a gift of-Super-tax. Now they are shifting from the Central Fund sums that do not amount to more than a few thousands. I think there are other sources which could be taxed before they come down to these
mean devices. Some of the Lords Chancellor, for instance, might be touched, and some of the pensions which are paid, with all respect, to obscure members of the Royal Family. Other sources should be taxed first. It is not long since the House voted a vast sum for expenditure in Mesopotamia, and I remember the cheers raised when it was said that the British Empire was not built up by running away. Neither was the British Empire built up by petty devices like this. I hope the House will resist the transfer of these charges on to shoulders less able to bear them.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member no doubt appreciates that this is perhaps a difficult matter to understand and I know he will forgive me when I say he is wholly misleading on the intention of this Section. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) and the hon. Member opposite who is a Member of the Consultative Council, knows there are two funds rising out of the stamp savings. The first concerns insurance stamps purchased in advance of requirements. That sum, with a number of items such as stamps for which no claim has been made —it is not a large sum, the major part being stamps paid for in advance—amounts to £1,500,000 at the present time. On that, interest is being borne at the rate of 4½ per cent., which is about £67,000. That cannot be regarded as money which belongs to any national insurance fund or to any approved society. Obviously, the approved societies have nothing to do with it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Who gets this £67,000 now?

Sir K. WOOD: At the present moment it is in this stamps sales account, and we are proposing to utilise it for this purpose.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What is this stamps sales account?

Sir K. WOOD: It comes, as a matter of fact, under Section 68 of the Act; certain proportion of it representing unclaimed stamps goes to the Central Fund.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Then it is robbing the Central Fund.

Sir K. WOOD: No. When employers have paid in advance for insurance stamps it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to belong to the insurance societies. And now perhaps I might indicate other provisions in the Clause. In addition to this particular fund, there is a sum of money which arises from lost cards, cards lost or destroyed and never claimed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it in order on this Amendment, which seeks to alter a date, to go into questions relating to the whole Clause? I understand the hon. Member is now discussing all the Amendments dealing with this Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Strictly speaking, it would probably be considered out of order to go further than the actual Amendment. But during the course of this Debate it has been the practice to show the objections to the particular Measure in order to give reasons for putting it off. I think it is also for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the substance of this Sub-section on this first Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I recognise the justice of the case, but that has usually been done before the Mover has moved his Amendment in order to give him the same latitude in moving as was given to those who reply. In this case the Mover simply contented himself with moving the Amendment in a very brief speech. Should not those who are replying on behalf of the Government be restricted in the same way?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On that point of Order. I should have thought it would have been in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the particulars and let us know what are the amounts which are to be operated under this Clause. The proposal is the postponement, and my hon. and gallant friend the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) very properly asked what were the amounts. I should have thought that was very germane to the Amendment. We should know exactly what the sums are.

Sir K. WOOD: I was saying that there is a fund which has for some time been available from lost and destroyed cards and stamps, and in the past that fund
was used, at any rate for the last two years, for the purposes of paying the extra amount to the medical men on the panel. That fund, at any rate so far as the great bulk of it is concerned—and at one time it was of considerable proportions—will be practically exhausted by the end of the year. But, men being what they are, it is anticipated that stamps will be lost and cards destroyed again, so that it is calculated by the actuaries that there will be a sufficient fund available to meet the purposes set out in the remaining part of the Clause. The first one is to prevent members of societies getting in arrear or being or continuing to be suspended from benefit. Approved societies pay under present conditions some £250,000 a year to enable insured persons suffering from prolonged unemployment to avoid suspension from benefit, and we are proposing under this Clause that the money should be made available out of this Fund to members of approved societies in order that they may avoid losing their benefits through prolonged unemployment. Then the second Sub-clause (b) arises from the fact that, unfortunately, there has been special difficulty, as many hon. Members know, owing to the serious increase in the cost of drugs. That is referred to many times in the investigations made by the Royal Commission, and it is estimated that the deficiency on the Drug Fund will be increased to £600,000 by 1st December, 1926. In order to meet that situation we make the provision in (b). Under (c), if there is any money left at that time, the balance is to be devoted to the matters set out in Clause 1, namely, matters of providing insurance stamps and cards.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is the saving to the Treasury by the operation of this?

Sir K. WOOD: So far as stamps are concerned, as I have already said, £200,000.

Mr. THOMAS: Supposing this Clause is not operative, that is to say, not included in the Bill, where would that sum of £200,000 go, and what would it be used for?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the answer is, of course, that it would remain in the
stamps fund. A portion of it goes into the Central Fund.

Mr. PALING: How much money has been paid in by the Government up to the present?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not quite follow.

Mr. PALING: What is the diversion of this money for the purpose as it stands in the Bill going to save the Government?

Sir K. WOOD: We are asking for £200,000.

Mr. DAVIES: I thought I understood the National Health Insurance scheme rather well, but this Clause actually baffles me, and I shall want much more enlightenment from the hon. Gentleman than he has yet been able to give. Up to this moment the moneys secured from unclaimed stamps have gone to a fund held by the Ministry of Health and the Treasury. Out of that fund there has been paid at the rate of 3s. per insured member per annum towards medical benefit. What this Clause does is to throw the 3s. on the funds of the approved societies. I will put it another way. If the unclaimed stamp account was still allowed to accumulate, that money as in the case of 1924–25, would go towards the 13s. medical benefit for 1926 and onwards.

Mr. THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the original amount was paid over to meet the situation, for it did not belong to the approved societies.

Sir K. WOOD: A portion belongs to the Central Fund.

Mr. DAVIES: As far as I understand the National Health insurance scheme, the Government is not entitled to make any profit out of the transactions even of the sale of stamps. This is a business with several other Departments connected with it, and I understand the Government is making a profit of £1,500,000 in the stamps sales account.

Sir K. WOOD: No. This £1,500,000 is money paid by employers in advance for stamps, but no one is attempting to take the money that belongs to the State on the stamps that have been purchased. It is the interest which we are keeping.

Mr. DAVIES: I did not follow the right hon. Gentleman before; he has now cleared a point which was rather intricate. But the sum total of the transaction is this, that because employers pay for their stamps in advance there accrues to the State a certain sum by way of interest, and then the Government, in order to relieve the Treasury of the cost of stamps and insurance cards utilise this interest. I do not know what the employers will do after a statement of that kind. I imagine that some employers on the Tory side at any rate will take note of the fact that the State is making interest on payments in advance for stamps. As far as I understand this intricate problem, the Government up to are paying for the stamps and for the insurance cards. Consequently what we are about to do at the moment is to utilise this interest and relieve the State. That is the only deduction that one can draw from the statement, of the hon. Gentleman, who said that the cost of stamps and cards is £200,000 per annum. That is one-half the cost, dividing it into two parts between the widows pensions scheme and this scheme. I do not understand these sums of money on the fringe of the national health insurance scheme which do not belong to the approved societies.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to argue that the value of the unclaimed stamps should not belong to approved societies. I challenge that doctrine. Let us see exactly what happens. An employer employs 10 workpeople, he proceeds to the post office to buy stamps to fix on their cards and pays over to the post office the money in respect of those stamps Surely when the employer buys those stamps over the counter of the post office he is entering into a transaction under the national health insurance scheme. When the 10 men hand their cards or post them to the society and one gets lost, the Treasury takes the value of the card, about 35s., and the Parliamentary Secretary stands up and declares that the money does not belong to the approved society. To whom does it belong if not to the approved society? Does it really belong to the Treasury? This is a new code of morality in finance. If a man entering the Bank of England, saw there the sum of £1,100,000, and took the money from the
coffers of the bank that would be regarded as stealing. But if the same man went to the bank and said that he was transferring that sum of money, which does not belong to him, by process of a cheque on a bank account, that would be honest, I suppose.
We are dragging information out gradually, and before we conclude I expect the whole Clause will be explained. I see that paragraph (b) of this Clause is to the effect that sums of money are to be paid in respect of medicine and appliances supplied as part of the medical benefit, What I cannot understand is that we were presumed in Clause 2 to have covered the whole cost of medical benefit, yet the hon. Gentleman comes along and says there is still a sum of £600,000 to go towards the cost of medical benefit. He ought to explain exactly what he means by that. I regard this Clause not only difficult to understand but deliberately and purposely made so. Hon. Members who have had experience of Bills for 10, 15 or 20 years, tell me that even they do not understand the Clause. The hon. Gentleman (Sir K. Wood), who is so well versed in National Health insurance, was quite capable of supplying that remarkable article on National Health Insurance to the Press of the country, and the Committee ought therefore to demand a fuller explanation than he has given.

8.0 A.M.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman told us during the Debate that the excess for medical benefit was drawn from a certain source, and at this moment the source was being drained and, unless sonic Clause of the Bill made out a provision for the extra medical fees, the donation would be 3s. per patient short as a result of diverting that Clause for a period of 12 months. At the same time, as my hon. Friend has just stated in a fairly comprehensive survey of the whole financial aspect, whatever arguments may be advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary or try the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, the plain elementary fact is that every source from which money can be drawn which ought really to belong to the approved society, has been drawn upon. Now the hon. Gentleman tells us, for instance, that this stamp money and the money for cards really ought to go to the State, and ought not to be the possession of the approved society. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman
this question: Does he believe it would be legitimate for the nation to demand all moneys paid to the Prudential or any other insurance company when policies have lapsed? It seems to me to be a fair simile, and if it is legitimate for the State on this occasion to take any money desired from books of stamps, it would be well for the State to demand all money for policies that have lapsed. Secondly, I seem to feel that this Bill, notwithstanding the portion that will be utilised for them who have to work for long periods to prevent them losing their normal benefits, holds the plain financial fact that the Government is going to secure annually £200,000 that ought to be left for national distribution among the 15 million people who need it most in the form of additional benefits. As the medical benefits are no longer derived from this particular course, it seems to me there is no justification for the State to take advantage of these sums of money. I urge the Committee at least to support this Amendment, which extends the Clause until 1930 instead of 1927. The comparatively small sums to be derived should be available for emergencies during the next two or three years. I see no reason why the State should take this money which does not belong to it. They are not entitled to any money that accrues as the result of lost stamps or cards. I urge the Committee to support this Amendment so at least to delay the application of this particular Clause until 1930.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: When I hear the Parliamentary Secretary defending this Bill and this Clause, he reminds me of a story of two old ladies who went for a ride in a four-wheeled cab before motors came into being. They tendered the cabman a 4d. piece, a 3d. piece, three pennies, three halfpennies and two farthings. The cabman looked at them and said: "How long have you been saving up for this little treat?" We have had the 4d. piece; in Clause 8 we may expect the 3d. piece on the Unemployment Fund. The others will allow the pennies, but this particular item is one of the farthings. I think it is perfectly clear that when we penetrate below the surface of the
subterfuges which the Parliamentary Secretary has been put to to explain that this fund is not taken from the approved societies, we shall find that it really does consist of money which ought to be given for purposes of health and relief of sickness, and sickness benefit. It is no use pretending that all these sums of money are found like coins beneath the table. These are sums which do belong to the Central Fund of the insured or health insurance societies, and, therefore, we are really depriving the sick persons of the money to which they would ultimately become entitled.

Mr. PALING: The words "scientific robbery" have been used in a recent speech. I have heard them used in this Debate. I think the Government on one or two occasions objected to the term, but as we go through each Clause of this Bill I conclude that the term is rather too mild. The Government's predatory instincts are found in every Clause we get to. At first it was £2,800,000; then another £1,900,000 was added. Everyone thought that was the extent to which they had got. Now, apparently, there is another £200,000 which is going to be saved. I suppose the Government will probably find another nest-egg or two. I think the principle in this Clause is exactly the same as in the two previous Clauses. This money belongs to the insured contributors, and should be expended on them. The Under-Secretary argues that this has been contributed in various ways and belongs to the Central Fund. But only two of the three parties are going to be advantaged by taking this money from the Central Fund. If the three parties had an equal say, or if the excess of surplus were going to be divided equally, there might be some justification in the arrangement, but for the Government to say that this fund has accumulated in a way that could not be foreseen in 1911, and to say, "The funds belong to the dominant partner," is not to my mind a fair argument. Everyone will agree that the Government are taking advantage of their position. Another question I would like to ask is in regard to the people who may have filled a card of stamps and then lost it. If I understand it aright, this money comes into this fund. I had a case brought to my notice only a few months ago of a man living in my own constituency who asked for his card from his
employer after six months. It was full up, and when he went to his work with it in his pocket, it was taken out of his pocket. He wrote to his approved society and to the Minister of Health to ask if he could receive any help. The latest information that I have is that he could receive no help. He lost the money and had to find it. I think a man would be more assured that he was being treated justly if he was sure, at least, that the three parties to the arrangement were going to have the amount equally distributed between them. Is not there any means whereby an unfortunate contributor who loses his card may be given some help in this respect?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very clear exposition he gave of a most complicated, obscure and iniquitous Clause. I confess until I heard his explanation I had no clear idea what the nature of the transaction was, and I am not complaining of draftsmanship. The task was probably impossible. The whole of the Bill seems to he drafted in a way as if instructions were given that it should be as little clear as possible for the people whose money is taken away. I think that is a view taken by approved societies and distinguished lawyers with whom I have consulted. For my part, I tried to get hold of somebody to draft instructions which somebody could understand. I consulted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and asked him to find a man who had not too much experience of the Bar, and it is generally accepted that the National Health Insurance Bill was a very clear Bill. That counsel, I am afraid, has not been employed this time, or, if he has, the instructions were different to those that were given before. So far as I understand the transaction, I have not quite been able to find out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets out of this. I know he gets something out of it. He picks up a sum of money from stamps; he picks up another little fund; and there is a third. He is like a cat burglar who has been rummaging every drawer and picking up a little here and a little there, but what the transaction amounts to in the aggregate I did not quite understand. Did I understand it was £200,000 in the aggregate?

Sir K. WOOD: The net gain to the Exchequer is, of a certainty, £67,500, and that is the interest on the Fund I have mentioned to the Committee. He is sure to get that, and if there is a balance left over after dealing with (a) and (b)— namely, the amount after it has been paid to members to enable them to keep their benefits and after meeting the deficiency on the drug fund—if there is a balance, then up to the extent of £200,000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive it in return for the services which he is rendering in providing stamps and cards for the purposes of National Insurance.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That does not show us what the net transaction is. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertaking any liability which he did not undertake before? He walks off with the whole of the £67,500, but the hon. Member does not tell us very clearly what the Chancellor is going to get out of the £200,000. He says he has got a liability of some sort or another. Is that a new liability? If it is not, why should he put that on the other side of the account?

Sir K. WOOD: Insurance stamps and cards have hitherto been provided by the State free to the insured persons of the country. Under this new arrangement the Treasury will receive as payment towards the £200,000 which it has cost so far as national insurance is concerned— the other £200,000 is in respect of the widows' pensions fund—the Treasury will of a certainty receive £67,000 odd from the interest which is on the £1,500,000 fund which is mainly provided by employers by payment for their stamps in advance. He is sure to get that £67,000. Then out of the, other fund—the destroyed stamps and cards—if there is any balance left over from that fund after making payment to insured persons to enable them to keep in benefit when subject to long unemployment and after the payment of the £600,000 deficiency on the drug fund, then the Chancellor will receive any money that is left up to the extent of £200,000. It comes to this, that out of those two funds—neither of which can in fairness be said to belong, at any rate directly, to the approved societies of the country—payment is going to be made for the insurance cards and stamps, and in addition these provisions are going to be made for the insured persons of the country. The worst that could be said
against this transaction would be that in the past the cards and stamps were not paid for, but it was a gratuitous service to the Fund, whereas now they are being paid for in the way that I have indicated. In regard to lost cards and the question whether a person losing a card would suffer in consequence, if a contributor can prove the card was destroyed or lost through no fault of his own, a refund to the value of the stamps on the card is made. The greater part of the fund with which we are dealing is really provided by people who do not trouble about these stamps.

The CHAIRMAN: I imagine in this respect that this Clause makes no change in the existing law one way or the other.

Sir J. SIMON: While I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the courtesy and the fulness with which he is able to deal with these matters at breakfast time, he really has not answered either of the two questions which he was asked. It is possible, of course, that he is not in a position to answer them, but, if he is, each can be answered by a single word. The first question is this: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if this Clause be passed, undertake to render any consideration in return that he does not render now? It must be possible to answer yes or no, but the hon. Gentleman did not answer. The second question is this: When you have finished your explanation of why, where and how it happens, what is the estimate of the amount that will be netted by this Clause?

Sir K. WOOD: I will make another endeavour. I am familiar with this question where you answer yes or no; it is the question of whether you have left off beating your wife, and you are supposed to answer yes or no to it. A judge, I believe, when counsel persists in putting questions of that kind, says, "You must answer yes or no, but you will be at full liberty to give a proper explanation after you have answered the question." I think it is generally recognised that it would be an unfair course to take, even at the Old Bailey, to expect a witness to answer yes or no without giving a proper explanation. The answer is that hitherto there was no charge for these stamps or
cards. Now they are to be paid for by the Fund which I have already indicated, and to that extent the Treasury, will, I hope, benefit to the extent of £200,000.

Mr. THOMAS: I think the net result of our discussion is that as far as the particular fund is concerned the hon. Gentleman claims that it does not belong to the approved societies. If it does not belong to the approved societies it is equally admitted that it does not belong to the Government, and whilst it belongs to neither of these parties it is also admitted that quite a good claim I will not put it higher, could be made that the approved societies should use it; and we submit that having regard to these circumstances the claim ought to be admitted on behalf of the approved society. The second point that arises is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to get £200,000 out of this trans action for precisely the same reason for which we passed the other Clauses. We think the £200,000 would be better spent on benefits.

Mr. MELLER: On the Amendment which has been ruled out of Order I wanted to make an appeal. It is very clearly set out in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill that the cost of the provision of stamps and cards and the sale of stamps has been in the past borne between the Ministry of Health, the Scottish Board of Health, the Post Office and the Stationery Office. It is hoped by certain arrangements to relieve the Exchequer of the cost —£200,000. It is not so much a question of £200,000. I want to raise my voice against the principle involved. From the very commencement of the Insurance Act the cost of provision for stamps and cards has been a cost which has been thrown upon the central authority. It should not be passed on to the societies. Some time ago when the Geddes Committee made their report they did suggest by way of economy that the cost should be placed upon the societies. That was turned down. If this proposal is to go through it is going to open the door very widely to the principle of other expenses and charges being improperly placed upon approved societies. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the small amount of saving here and also having regard to the fact that it is a, dangerous precedent
and one which may be used in, the future to the disadvantage of the Government or other Government Departments, to consider between now and the Report stage as to the advisability of taking back this Clause.

Mr. J. HUDSON: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for his courage in breaking the silence of the party opposite. It is most unfortunate that so much attention is given to a matter to which thousands are concerned when millions are being taken away from approved so ieties. An hon. Member just now referred to the fact, that a little while ago at a public dinner the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was described as a scientific robber. In this matter however he is but a petty pilferer in little amounts on stamps and cards. If it is right to take for the benefit of the Treasury the cost of these stamps and cards, it is equally just that you should look in all sorts of other petty directions in which the Treasury might add to its account. Why not, for example, put the special cost of printing circulars and other printing that is connected with the insurance legislation and administration upon the insurance societies. A large number of small expenses of this sort that

are quite rightly borne by the central authority could be equally well transferred. It is most objectionable in a matter of this sort where the practice has become so well established after several years that the Treasury should be endeavouring to collect these funds from these petty quarters. I would remind the Minister that if it is justifiable to do this thing with regard to stamps and cards there are inumerable cases for applying this principle. There are the unclaimed balances not only of insurance societies, but of banks. There are many other quarters in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is to be encouraged by this sort of legislation, might establish a precedent in order to help him out of the difficulties that confront him. This is a very petty matter as it stands, but it can become extremely important when considered as a precedent in other directions, and I think the Minister of Health would have been very well advised in view of the dangerous precedent by withdrawing it, and I hope we shall support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'twenty-seven' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 85.

Division No. 147.]
AYES.
[8.30. a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies. Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Atkinson, C.
Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Loder, J. de V.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lougher, L.


Bethel, A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Blundell, F. N
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean, Major A.


Brass, Captain W.
Goff, Sir Park
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Briscoe, Richard George
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, f. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grant, J. A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Malone, Major P. B.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Guinness, Ht. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Barks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Burman, J. B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Haslam, Henry C.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Chapman, Sir S.
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Neville, R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cope, Major William
Hills, Major John Waller
Nuttall, Ellis


Couper, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Penny, Frederick George


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perring, Sir William George


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Howard. Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).
Philipson, Mabel


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gansbro)
Huntingfield, Lord
Power, Sir John Cecil


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Preston, William


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jacob, A. E.
Radford, E. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raine, W.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ropner, Major L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ruggles-Brice, Major E. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wise, Sir Fredric


Salmon, Major I.
Templeton, W. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Sandon, Lord
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shaw, R. G. (York), W.R., Sowerby)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Wragg, Herbert


Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)
Tinne, J. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain D. E.



Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wells, S. R.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Lord Stanley.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Stephen, Campbell


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sullivan, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thurtle, E.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Townend, A. E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Viant, S. P.


Clowes, S.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cluse, W. S.
Mackinder, W.
Warne, G. H.


Cove, W. G.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins, William Martin


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, P. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dennison, R.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Fenby, T. D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Grundy, T. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Sitch, Charles H.
Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr. Garro-Jones.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Mr. MORRIS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, after the word "shall," to insert the words
after being applied to the purposes set forth in the next Sub-section
The right hon. Gentleman having decided to make this raid, the object of the Amendment is to ensure the more equitable distribution of the money. We are not quite clear what amount the Treasury is to take from this raid. As far as we gather, it is admitted to be somewhere about £100,000. Perhaps we could have some estimate.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will offer some reply. I have been under the impression myself that Sub-section (2), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are largely window dressing. There is no guarantee that there will be any money left over for stamps. I should like to ask the right
hon. Gentleman on what grounds, they must be very flimsy ones, but we might as well hear what they are, does he base the hope that there will be any money left over at all for (a), (b) and (c)?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member has not understood.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I have just explained that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Sub-section (1) deals only with interest, but Sub-section (2) deals with the balances, first, what it is necessary to pay under paragraph (a)—£250,000; second, the sums that come under paragraph (b)— £480,000; third, whatever is over will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that prior claim he gets under the Clause upon the interest. In that case,
interest will go in with the balances, and be available, first for paragraph (a), second, for paragraph (b), and only third for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At this early hour of the morning, if the hon. Member who moved the Amendment attaches any special importance to it, I am not indisposed to meet him in the matter. I do not think really this is a very important matter, but if he thinks it is important, I should be very happy indeed to meet him, and I will give him an undertaking that in another place I will bring in words to do exactly what he proposes to do.

Mr. THOMAS: I think there was a general conclusion on this side of the House that after all the hours of Debate, it was becoming, useless to plead with the right hon. Gentleman. This is the first magnificent concession. At a quarter to nine, after four days, this is the first. I can only say that the hon. Member should not look a gift horse in the mouth. I think we ought even to accept the suggestion, and place it on record that some attempt was made to satisfy our pleadings, yet I would advise the hon. Member not to believe it until he sees the Report, but to take a tramp round the Lobbies.

Mr. MORRIS: I will take the right hon. Gentleman's advice and leave it to the Report stage, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after the word "part," to insert the words "to an amount not exceeding seven-ninths."
I should like to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman is disposed to extend his generosity to this Amendment. I believe it limits the amount of money which the Government take and really makes some financial concession. It will be more evidence of generosity if he will accept this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member is quite mistaken in supposing that the Amendment he has made would deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of anything at all. I do not think he has read his Amendment. Its effect would be to say that that part of the costs of providing insurance stamps and cards for widows' pensions and for National Health Insurance which is attributable to National Health Insurance, shall not exceed seven-ninths. Now, that really is nonsense.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Out of appreciation for this display of a generous attitude, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 83.

Division No. 148.]
AYES.
[8.50. a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George.
Hartington, Marquess of


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bethel, A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).


Brass, Captain W.
Drewe, C.
Huntingfield, Lord


Briscoe, Richard George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jacob, A. E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Burman, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Locker-Lampson, Com. D. (Handsw'th)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
Loder, J. de V.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Grant, J. A.
Lougher, L,


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
McLean, Major A.


Cope, Major William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Couper, J. B.
Harland, A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Malone, Major P. B.
Roberts. Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ropner, Major L.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Margesson, Capt. D.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Russell, Alexander Wist (Tynemouth)
Waddington, R.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Rye, F. G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Salmon, Major I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandon, Lord
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Savery, S. S.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, R, G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Neville, R. J.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Perring, Sir William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wemersley, W. J.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Woodcock, colonel H. C.


Philipson, Mabel
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wragg, Herbert


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert O. T.


Preston, William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang



Radford, E. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raine, W.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir H. Barnston.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Templeton, W. P.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sneffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Ammon, Charles George
Mayday, Arthur
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Barnes, A
Hirst, G. H.
Stephen, Campbell


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sullivan, Joseph


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thurtle, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Clowes, S,
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Cluse, W. S.
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cove, W. G.
Morris, R. H.
West wood, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Paling, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dennison, R.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Fenby, T. D.
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Grundy, T. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. B., Normanton)
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.

CLAUSE 5.—(Transfer from Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund to Exchequer.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That

the Chairman do report Progress, and ask to sit again."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 48.

Division No. 149.]
AYES.
[8.57 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Clonel
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton
Everard, W. Lindsay


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Atkinson, C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir Park


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cope, Major William
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bethel, A.
Couper, J. B.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hartington, Marquess of


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Milne, J. S Wardlaw-
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hills, Major John Waller
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nuttall, Ellis
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, H.)
Penny, Frederick George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Huntingfield, Lord
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Templeton, W. P.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perring, Sir William George
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Jacob A. E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Philipson, Mabel
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Kennedy, T.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waddington, R.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Raine, W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wells, S. R.


Loder, J. de V.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lougher, L.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rye, F. G.
Winterton, Rt. Han. Earl


Limley, L. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord
Womersley, W. J.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Savery, S. S.
Woodcock, Colonel H C.


McLean, Major A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Wragg, Herbert


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Macquisten, F. A.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Malone, Major P. B.
Skelton, A. N.



Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Captain D.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


Meller, R. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Meyer, Sir Frank




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barker, G, (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Snell, Harry


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sullivan, Joseph


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Thurtle, E.


Bromley, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Townend, A. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Varley, Frank B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Viant, S. P.


Clowes, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Westwood, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Fanby, T. D.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Potts, John S.



Gibbins, Joseph
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Dennison and Mr. Short.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after Nine o'Clock a.m. Thursday, 15th April.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICE (ORGANISATION).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Civil Service has merited the gratitude of the nation but that its continued efficiency depends upon the control of that Service by His Majesty's Ministers responsible to this House, upon the strict maintenance of its constitutional position as a subordinate branch of administration, and upon the continuance of those traditions by which it has been animated in the past.
Perhaps, while hon. Members are Leaving the Chamber, I may be permitted a few preliminary words until the House has settled down, and we are left to the soliloquy of a quiet dinner hour in the presence of the Official Reporter. In rising to propose the Motion which stands in my name, it is a considerable satisfaction that the great bulk of those who are listening to me will be in sympathy with the major part of my Motion. I am certain that all of us acknowledge the deep debt which Constitutional Government in this country owes to our unique Civil Service. We have, perhaps, less definite knowledge of the Civil Service in older days, but for the last two or three generations we have known how much we owe to the Civil Service. In the older days the function of the official agents of administration were dependent largely upon varying circumstances and, perhaps, upon personal influences, but in later times the functions of our civil servants have become more
clearly defined and their duties more exacting.
It was about the middle of the last century that Parliament decided, after due deliberation, that entry into the Civil Service should be decided by competitive examination, not an infallible method of selection—[An HON. MEMBER "Hear, hear !"]—hut one which, despite the doubt expressed by one hon. Member, had the advantage of securing a certain intellectual energy and capacity, and which, I think, looking back upon these three generations, has worked well on the whole. The main features of our Civil Service depend upon the fact that it is governed by the spirit rather than the letter. It conforms in that to our British Constitution which is, above all things, flexible, and that flexibility is its crowning virtue. The Civil Service has been guided not so much by formal rules and regulations as by a high spirit of honour, by zeal in the discharge of its duties, and by pride of tradition which ought to and, we believe, does animate it.
I do not consider that the fact that for 35 years I served in the ranks of the Civil Service debars me from paying a due tribute of respect to it, and even from venturing to share in the high pride which it claims. Our Civil Service has never been, as in some other countries, a class apart. It has stood on a footing of equality with the best of the professional class. It has mingled with them in all their varieties of intellectual and political tastes. It has its restrictions but it also has its compensations. It has security, and within moderate and adequate measure independence, and though the
unwritten tradition which ought to govern the relations between the political chief and the permanent servants are duly and loyally observed, those relations can become, as I can say from experience, peculiarly pleasant. It was not the business of the civil servant to hold direct communication with the outside world—a claim which I observe is made for him in recent days—nor was it the business of the civil servant to practice political propaganda. It was the business of the civil servant to put before his political chief with all the force of argument that he could command, his own opinion, but, on the other hand, when the political chief had chosen his final and deliberate policy it was the duty of the permanent civil servant to follow it loyally and to press it forward with the utmost zeal in his power.
I venture to quote one instance from my own experience. Rarely, in the long course of 35 years, during 20 years of which I was the permanent head of a Department, was it my lot to differ with my political chief. These things seldom do occur; but on one occasion a political chief who was also a: lifelong and most intimate friend of mine, took a different view from me upon a particular point. We discussed it fully and came no nearer to agreement. Finally, he said,
I hold to my original opinion. You have certain technical and detailed knowledge which I do not possess. I have to ask you to draft a full letter, putting my case against your own as honestly as you can.
My political chief in asking this was strictly within his rights, and unhesitatingly I drafted a letter out-arguing my own argument. I am certain that any Civil servant who understood the spirit of his job would have felt and acted as I did. The Civil Service has the advantage of security and of adequate independence. It does not seek, and perhaps does not greatly miss, the delights of publicity—an aim which seems to attract every day more worshippers. It is now, as we are all aware, the avowed object of proclaimed ambition. I am inclined to think, although I cannot profess to be familiar with all the rapidly developing features of our modern Universities, that in some of these institutions it has become part of the curriculum and is recognised by a University degree. But perhaps the Civil Service was wise not to worship at that
shrine. May I venture, for the first time and for the last in this House, to quote from a Latin poet."Nee visit male qui natus moriens-que fefellit, says Horace. If I might freely translate I would do so in this way—"He has not lived ill who from birth to death has eschewed self-advertisement."But sound work in congenial surroundings and among loyal colleagues, and the consciousness of playing no inferior part in guiding public affairs, are no worthless compensations even for the delights of publicity.
Nor was it until very recent years that financial considerations began to bulk largely in the horizon of the Civil Service. They sought and strove for a fair competence, and were content to balance its moderate dimensions by the consolation of congenial and important work. It was not the habit of the civil servant of the higher grade to aspire to the five figure salaries of the City. While having the highest respect for the leaders of commerce and finance, he did not seek to enter their ranks; nor did he think that financial magnates were always seen at their best in public administration. But of late years new ideas have prevailed. Some of the new type of politicians conceive that the straight path to a political millenium is to be found in the apotheosis of the business man and in the supremacy of the Lombard Street financier in the fields of higher politics at Downing Street. It is a pleasing delusion; I think it has already been found out. But it has produced some ugly and pernicious results. First of all, the relations between Lombard Street and the Treasury became rather too close to be quite wholesome.
Between the leading officials of the Treasury and the heads of finance constant negotiations must go on. Is it quite as it should be that these leading officials should, upon retirement from office, find places waiting for them on leading financial undertakings, which they in their turn will represent in negotiations with those who were lately their own junior colleagues? Further, the Civil Service has been able, without any deliberate action by this House, to increase the salaries of the higher officers on the ground that they must be paid salaries which will enable them to resist the lavish offers made to them by the City. I have serious doubts whether the estimate of those gentlemen in the City is quite as high as their own. But at
least I am quite sure that to raise their salaries so as to be in many cases 50 per cent. higher than those paid to the Ministers under whom they serve, is a flagrant flouting of Parliament, whose representatives. are placed openly in an inferior position to those over whom they are supposed to exercise authority. This lavish extension of the salary scale was made on the recommendation of a Committee of three, of whom Lord Oxford and Asquith was chairman. It was never discussed from beginning to end in Parliament. These are ugly features in the new development of the Civil Service, of which we formerly had every reason to be proud.
But there are other aspects of the matter which are equally distasteful, and perhaps even more dangerous. There seems to be a morbid desire among some of our politicians of to-day to substitute formality and iron-bound definition for flexibility and the spirit of a sound tradition. I have had on former occasions, by my pen and in this. House, to protest most strongly against that new-fangled and fantastic machinery of a Cabinet Secretariat. I tried to show—and I then had the support of the present Lord Oxford and Asquith and of Sir Donald Maclean—that this invention was profoundly opposed to the whole spirit of our Constitution. As a legal term that Constitution knows nothing of what is called the Cabinet. The Cabinet is none the less an excellent and a potent force in this country; but every constitutional lawyer will tell you that it is very hard to define. It is probably only a Committee of the Privy Council, not confined, like other Committees of the Privy Council, to one subject, but ranging over every sphere of administration. No minutes were kept. Its decisions were locked in the breasts of its members, and could be divulged only in special circumstances and by the express permission of His Majesty the King. We all know that with any body of loyal and honourable men such is the best possible arrangement.
But now a new branch of this encroaching Civil Service is to be invested with functions which were never before entrusted even to members of the Privy Council. It was held improper for any Privy Councillor to publish, or even to keep, notes of its proceedings. But
these new officials are to shape the new Minutes; they are to be the repositories of all the precedents. They arc presumably to be invested with the full and intimate confidences of successive Governments of the most diverse principles. Are these confidences to be their own exclusive property, or are they to he open to the inspection of succeeding Governments? The whole scheme has been adopted without due consideration, with amazing recknessness, and with a disregard of possible absurdities that shows a considerable lack of humour. It was one of the most baleful of the fell heritages that were left to us by the Coalition Government.
Curiously enough, history had its lesson that might have pointed out the danger involved. Have the devisers of new and unconstitutional expedients ever inquired how the Secretaries of State acquired their power? They were originally only the clerks who drafted the Orders in Council when the Privy Council was the main instrument in Government. In that capacity they became inevitably the chief repositories of power. But that power was legitimate and constitutional, because they were responsible to Parliament. Our precious Cabinet Secretariat can never aspire to that responsibility.
But may we not be allowed deeply to regret that some support is now given to schemes having the same tendency as some of the regrettable changes wrought by the Coalition Government? I do not wish to occupy the time of the House by recounting the constant and increasing encroachments upon the sphere both of the legislative and the judicial elements in our constitution, by aggressive action on the part of those who are, after all, only subordinate members of the administrative machine. These subordinate officials now are becoming more pronounced in self-advertisement; they receive salaries largely shove those paid to their responsible chiefs; by easy methods of draftsmanship they secure for themselves what are practically legislative and judicial powers. It is surely time that the responsible Government reasserted the proper prerogative of His Majesty's Administration, of Parliament, and of the Judiciary, and relegated to their own proper functions a small section of the Civil Service, with
which the great majority of that Service are profoundly out of sympathy, and whose tendency they would gladly repudiate had they the chance.
This is the moment chosen to put forward a new theory, and to claim for a single member of the Civil Service a power and authority which have never belonged to his office, for which no shred of constitutional principle can he adduced, which would dislocate the whole administrative machine, and which has aroused the unanimous opposition of the Civil Service itself. I refer to the scheme of creating and assuming for an officer in a single Department the high sounding title of"Head of the Civil Service,"and assigning to him certain functions which are arbitrarily to be attached to that newly-minted office.
I had occasion to ask certain questions of the Prime Minister with regard to this new scheme. With his usual courtesy, the Prime Minister, who had expressed formerly his desire to have a Debate on the subject, has explained to rue to-day the impossibility of his attendance, and, of course, I accept the explanation absolutely. I have full authority from him to refer to certain of his answers, and I am compelled to say that those answers raised in my mind certain misgivings, which I hope he or his representative may he able to remove. He told me that the post was first created by Treasury Minute in 1867, but it subsequently appeared that that Minute has disappeared for more than 50 years, so that its historical value is appreciably impaired. If appears that in 1918 or thereabouts something more was done, but we are not told exactly what that something was. This at least can be said—that so far as I know, no official paper or document presented to this House, as Estimate or otherwise, has used that title. It has crept info"Whitaker's Almanack,"a very useful, but not exactly authoritative reference book. One is inclined to wonder by what agency it found its way there.
It is somewhat wonderful in view of these declarations that I should have received several letters from former Secretaries of the Treasury and of other leading public departments testifying in the strongest way that no such appoint-
ment and no such regulation ever prevailed in their time or would have been recognised. In quite recent years there were three co-ordinate permanent Secretaries to the Treasury. Which of these three co-ordinate permanent Secretaries was the titular of this new mysterious supremacy? To an old member of the Civil Service, there is, besides its palpable lack of constitutional foundation, something ludicrously absurd in this new-fangled piece of mountebankism. It occurs to me that in very recent years the Permanent Head of the Foreign Office was an ex-Viceroy of India and a Knight of the Garter, and, presumably, exercising no slight or insignificant influence in his own proper sphere. There is something vastly amusing in the idea of his being, in regard to his own office, at the orders of a junior member of the Civil Service, whose responsibilities ought to be strictly curtailed to his own office, and might, no doubt, with advantage be employed there. I have nothing to say against the present Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and his personality has not, I confess, prompted me to prolonged study. But, as a very old member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know the enormous debt we owe to the conspicuously eminent ability of the leading Treasury officials. I have never found the part of the Secretary one of the most conspicuous, and I am credibly informed that he considers his official duties in his own office to be subordinate to those plenipotentiary duties which are claimed, by or for him, in other offices, under this new-fangled and ill-chosen title.
The truth is that the whole scheme is a preposterous figment, constitutionally unsound, lacking any fragment of historical foundation, pernicious to the Civil Service, and dangerous to the functions of Parliament, unless it be peremptorily checked. The Prime Minister declares that he considers that the supreme responsibility of his own office for the supervision of the whole machinery of administration must be maintained. There we will all cordially, loyally and unanimously agree; but when he says that this supreme responsibility must be exercised through the agency and on the advice of a particular subordinate official in a particular office, then we claim the liberty, as loyal supporters, to disagree
with him absolutely and completely. By all means let that supreme responsibility be exercised by the Prime Minister, but it must be exercised through his colleagues, who are the Ministers of His Majesty, and who are responsible to Parliament, each for his own office. Never let us consent, that subordinates should be made masters—that the independent authority of Ministers and of Parliament should be impaired. It is only our duty to tell the Prime Minister that if he persist in pressing this newly and ill-conceived scheme upon us he will create a situation of grave danger. I am old enough to have long experience, and I can assure him that had former Prime Ministers ever put forward this doctrine and pretended to recognise a single Civil Servant as one who possessed, outside his own office, a power of controlling interference with the offices under other Ministers, the postbags of these Premiers would have yielded a- heavy crop of resignations. I have known some who, even under the most autocratic Premiers, would have resented with some emphasis any hint of such treatment. Grateful as we- are to our incomparable Civil Service, at once for their administrative zeal and for their constitutional tact, we should be none the less on the alert to watch for any encroachments, which are as adverse to the real interests of the Service as they are destructive of all sound theory of Parliamentary Government. I would ask the House to adopt the Motion which stands in my name. It is not a censure upon anyone. If anything it is a warning. But ask it to be adopted in order that there may be no doubt that this House will tolerate no tampering with the fundamental basis of Parliamentary government under the specious pretext of administrative convenience.
One word more only. We have quite recently changed the whole position of that great Civil Service in India, which for generations has exercised wide administrative and political power. It is to the honour of that great Service in India that to-day all the leading members of it have loyally accepted the new position, have descended to the position of civil servants in this country, and are prepared to do their very utmost to make successful the new constitution there. Is is not somewhat strange that, at the
same moment when they are bringing those who have administered a vast country where constitutional government is only in its cradle under the rules that govern the Civil Service here, we are relaxing those rules in regard to our own home civil servants and allowing them, step by step, to assume re-al administrative power?

Mr. WEBB: I am sure the House will feel that the speech to which we have just listened has shown not merely a fine temper, bin also a historical knowledge and what I may call a genial survey of the past that is a little rare in discussions in this House. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) really divided his speech into two parts. The terms of the Motion relate to the whole Civil Service and to its position and right policy and the necessity of its retaining the honourable and influential position which it rightly holds. But, on the other hand, one cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman himself attaches even more importance to the specific example which he chose of the rise in recent years of what he describes as the new official position of the permanent Bead of the Civil Service itself. I want to make some remarks on both those aspects. and I want, to begin with the examination of this position of the head of the Civil Service to which the right hon. Gentleman takes so much exception.
9.0 P.m.
I can remember, when I myself was a member of the Civil Service, being struck with the humble origin of the clerkships in the office of a- Secretary of State, how 200 years ago they were the personal servants of the Minister who happened to hold that high office, and all our Departments have grown out of those little groups of personal servants of the Ministers for the time being. But the position now is very different, and I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman has not given sufficient weight to the change in those offices. It might have been possible 200 years ago for each to have arranged the affairs of his own office and to have made his own appointments—

Sir H. CRAIK: They did it 20 years ago.

Mr. WEBB: —and to have, in fact, directed the office in the way that he thought most convenient, but now that you have such colossal Departments, not merely individually colossal, but still more colossal in the aggregate, there does seem some reason why a certain uniformity, a certain parallelism, should be maintained, not only in salaries, but also in hours, methods of appointment, and everything else,. When I came to the Board of Trade, at a considerable interval after I had been in the Civil Service, it occurred to me to ask:"How many letters do I receive every day?"The officer to whom I addressed that inquiry said:"I do not know,"and, without saying anything to me, they took a census for three days of the letters that arrived. At the end of the week they brought me the total, and the average day's total was 8,152—that is, 8,152 letters a day. That is a fact which could be talked about to one's constituents, but I need hardly say that I never saw those letters, and I then asked,"How many people are in the Department?"and the reply was."Excluding the provinces, and in London alone, rather over 3,000."That was one Department, one office, out of the congeries of five and twenty or so offices of which the Civil Service is now composed. Therefore, when you have a change from a comparatively small office—for, as the right hon. Gentleman said, not many years ago they were small offices—to the present enormous Departments, it should be taken into account. When I was in the Colonial Office, I think we were under 50 all told, and I am not such a very old man even now, so that when you come to the 3,000 of the Board of Trade and the corresponding numbers in other offices, it must be plain that some change is required. I do not know the historical origin of the head of the Civil Service. It is certainly very queer that it should date from a Treasury Minute of 1867, and that that minute should have been lost, but, after all, lawyers are not unfamiliar with titles which rest on presumptions of grants which have been lost, and there is nothing very odd in that.

Sir H. CRAIK: Are the lawyers familiar with titles which are repudiated by the heads of Departments?

WEBB: I withdraw the analogy, if there is anything in it to which the right hon. Gentleman objects, but I think substantially we may trace the origin of this dangerous functionary—dangerous to the welfare of the State and unknown to the Constitution—and trace its gradual rise to not so many years ago. I always think that this function, though not the functionary, probably had something to do with the recommendations of a certain Departmental Committee which was set up at about that time, known as the Machinery of Government Committee, and that Committee's Report, which has been very widely sold, is a very interesting document. That particular Blue Book happens now to be a text book in university studies on the Constitution, and the Stationery Office receives a constant supply of orders from students who have been directed to read the Machinery of Government Report as being the best account of the practice of the British Constitution in this respect. That Report certainly in various ways recommended that there should be some officer, some department, attached to the Treasury which should exercise a supervision, and in that sense even a control, over the other Government Departments, that the Treasury control ought not to consist merely in objecting to and criticising proposals for an increase of salary or an increase of expenditure, but that it ought to exercise an active supervising and inquiring authority, to see whether other reductions could not be made, to initiate reductions, and, for that matter, to initiate increases where increases were required. In fact, the recommendations of the Departmental Committee went a long way in the direction to which the right hon. Gentleman, apparently. strongly objects.
I have no responsibility in this matter now. The right hon. Gentleman who will reply for thy' Government will tell ns later what the view of His Majesty's Government is upon the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I cannot help thinking it is a good thing that there should he some sort of supervisory influence over all Government Departments—that the time has gone when each office can be allowed to he a law unto itself, and that it is necessary that changes should be made simultaneously in all offices, not merely with regard to scales of salaries and hours of work, but all sorts of other
things. In that way, I think it is almost inevitable that the almost unlimited autocracy which the Minister in charge of a Department had in years gone by, must necessarily come to an end, or be largely encroached upon, if you are to have a Civil Service which is now something like 300,000 in the aggregate, including all grades. If you have a Civil Service of 300,000 strong, it does become something quite other than the congeries of separate departments which it was a generation ago. If there is to be that supervision, it cannot be exercised, I venture to say, by a Minister, unless you have a Minister who does nothing else. If you have this Department of the Treasury charged with the supervision o f the other Departments—I do not mean with regard to policy, but simply with regard to the mechanism of the Department—then the head of the Treasury necessarily becomes responsible for the proper conduct of that Department at the Treasury. Then you have the question,"To whom is the head of the Treasury responsible?"The Prime Minister, the other day, very emphatically laid it down that he, as Prime Minister, felt he had responsibility over the whole conduct of the Civil Service, and necessarily exercised that responsibility through the Department of which the First Lord of the Treasury is the head.
With all the will in the world to fall in with the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, I really do not think there is much of which to complain on that score. If authority is to be exercised over the other departments, it would scarcely be any other Department than the Treasury in which that supervision should be placed. Again—coming back to the Colonial Office—we should have resented this authority of the Treasury as much too autocratic and too interfering. But now I am no longer an official of the Colonial Office, and look at it from another point of view, I can see there is some advantage of an outside department having to exercise that supervision over the mechanism of any department. Therefore, so long as we have the Treasury definitely responsible to the Ministers in charge of the Treasury, so long as we have those Ministers associated together with Cabinet responsibility, I am afraid we
cannot, as democrats, find anything of which to complain in the fact that the Prime Minister takes advice with regard to the exercise of that responsibility. All Ministers have to take advice, and that is how the permanent Civil Service exercises such a valuable and very important part in the government of the country. I admit the right hon. Gentleman, I think said, that the Prime Minister ought to exercise authority over the whole function of the Civil Service, but that he has to do that., not through the agency or upon the advice of a particular official, but through his colleagues in the Cabinet. I understand that is the right hon. Gentleman's position.

Sir H. CRAIK: The political head of the Department.

Mr. WEBB: That is to say, his colleague."The political head of the Department"—it is interesting how that adjective came to be attached to the Minister. The Minister has to content himself with being the political head in deciding the policy. If a Minister found himself very much engaged in the mechanism of the Department, and tried to answer 8,000 letters a day, he would have very little time for that policy. But when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that at no previous time did the Prime Minister exercise that authority over all the other officials except in the Cabinet through his colleagues, I remember to have read that one Prime Minister, namely, Sir Robert Peel, was reputed to be the actual working head of every Department of the State in his Ministry. Some people think lie was the greatest Prime Minister in many respects.

Sir H. CRAIK: He did not do it through a civil servant.

Mr. WEBB: I do not know how he did it. I think it is very probable that, unless he had a hundred arms and hands, he must have exercised it through arms and hands not his own. It may be there was no single officer who was the channel, but in this case the permanent head of the Treasury only exercises through the Department the supervision of the organisation of the Departments, scales of salaries, appointments, hours, holidays, the mechanical part of the office
work, in which you can hardly expect any Prime Minister, not even Sir Robert Peel, to be very proficient or very able, acting on his own initiative.
There is a matter connected with this subject which the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, and which I will venture to mention, because I think it is one of the things which is a little arguable, that is to say, the appointment of the permanent head of each of the Civil Departments. It used to be made, I suppose, a generation ago, by the Minister himself, but it came to be recognised, I think, that it was hardly wise to leave to the Minister, who might be, though a very admirable person, the chance product of an election, and not destined to be there very long, the full responsibility and full power of selecting the man who was to be the permanent head of a Department, it might be for 20 or 30 years hence; and so now, I believe, it is the constitutional practice that these appointments, though nominally made by each Minister, have to receive the concurrence of the Prime Minister of the day. And here comes the anomaly. The Prime Minister of the day is, we gather, advised by the permanent head of the Treasury. If that be the case, you have rather an anomalous position, because you have one head of a Department practically exercising a great deal of influence in the selection of all the other heads of Departments which happen to become vacant during his term of office. That is a state of things which I think is open to criticism. I must say, however, that I am afraid I do not know of any practical alternative. It is a great advantage that the appointment of a permanent head is not left completely to the choice of the accidental Minister of the day, and if there is going to he anybody joined with the Minister of the Department in making a selection it cannot be anybody else but the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister is to exercise any veto or influence in the appointments, he must take advice from somebody and from everybody he thinks fit, and the first person he would necessarily turn to would be the head of the Department which has, whether we like it or not, the supervision of the other Government Depart
ments on the mechanical side. Personally I do not see any alternative to the Prime Minister relying upon the advice of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury in regard to this practice of filling vacancies in all the other offices. I know that many people do not approve of some of the appointments which have been made, but I should not like to go back to the system by which the Minister for the time being exercised complete freedom to choose anyone he liked to become the permanent head of his office when he himself might only be in office for a few months.
I want to go back now to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because I wish to add a few words about the position of the Civil Service. In the first place, I want to hear testimony, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to the high qualities of our Civil Service. Nothing strikes the foreigner, or those acquainted with the matter, so much as the fact that you have succeeding Governments in office, and each Government can rely not only upon their help but on the loyalty and zeal of the Civil Service. I and my colleagues have had the experience of coming as new people to offices which might legitimately have presumptions and traditions against us, and I am sure I am speaking for all my colleagues when I say that we have nothing to complain of in regard to the loyalty, fidelity and zeal with which we found ourselves assisted during our short period of office. I want to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to opening the Civil Service to competitive examination, because in no other way could you have secured such a uniform level of intellectual capacity, which is a guarantee against an inferior brand. I know they cannot all he the very best, but in this way by competition you are guaranteed against anybody being below a certain high level of efficiency, and you could not get that. result under any system of selection.
I wish to say, however, that the system of open competition has not been strictly adhered to, and there have been side doors into the Service which have not in my opinion worked at all well. It seems useful and convenient to have opportunities to bring in somebody who has not got through the gateway of public competi
tion, but it is extremely dangerous to break down the practice of open competition and we should look with jealous scrutiny upon the existence of those side doors.
There is much to be said in favour of not taking simply a written examination without considering the personality of the candidate, but any suggestion that you would get better men by allowing Boards of Examiners to choose the men they like to look at might cause class bias to come in. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Civil Service had had some restrictions placed upon it in recent years and no doubt hon. Members will be pressed to consider more restrictions in the future. When you have a Service 300,000 strong, it is a serious matter to think that they are to be excluded from performing political work. You cannot claim that they should be excluded from citizenship. I am aware that they are allowed more freedom now than they were 100 years ago but they require still more freedom. They want freedom to become candidates for local bodies. They want freedom to become candidates. for Parliament without being compelled to relinquish their appointments immediately they become candidates.
The right hon. Gentleman said that they ought not to hold direct communication with the outside world, but I think there always was a lot of cant about that matter, for I have known civil servants in high positions in my youth who held a great deal of communication with the outside world. It used to be, in my Civil Service days, only the subordinate who was not allowed those privileges, although I managed to take very considerable liberties in that respect. Perhaps this was due to the fact that I was so humble that no one knew I was a civil servant, and I was able to do a lot of things which otherwise I would not have been allowed to do. I agree that there must be some restriction upon that kind of public work, and I also agree that it is well if we can keep those. restrictions in the letter and the spirit rather than have very rigid rules. We allow officers of the Army and Navy to be candidates and Members of Parliament, but we do not allow the soldier to take any part in politics. I do not think we shall be able to keep non-commissioned officers in any
different position from a lieutenant in that matter in the very near future. and consequently I think those restrictions will have to he looked at with increasing care.
Then we are told that they have the advantage of security. We have heard of civil servants being got rid of quite summarily, without any reference to any misconduct on their part, because of reductions of establishment and otherwise. There has been considerable heartburn-lug created, and that matter of security has not quite been maintained at perfection. Then we are told that the civil servants get in some cases such enormous salaries—even more than their Ministers themselves. Really, on behalf of the civil servants I should like to say that these salaries, allowing for the cost of living and other things, have not risen to the very enormous heights some people would have you imagine. There are one or two cases of civil servants rising to £2,000 a year and even perhaps to £3,000 a year in the higher cases.

Sir H. CRAIK: Fifty per cent. more than their own Ministers.

Mr. WEBB: It may be that these particular gentlemen arc worth more to the State. In fact, without particularising any Minister at all, I would say that it you take the market value of services—and I do nut want to take it—but if we are to take it, our leading civil servants can always obtain much larger salaries, beyond the dreams of the Treasury, as private citizens. That leads me to another point. I do not want our civil servants to be paid at the rate at which private enterprise pays its servants. I do not want the Government to raise its salaries for assistant secretaries to £15,000 a year, because one gentleman who was an assistant secretary is now reputed to be getting that salary in private enterprise. do not want that to be done. Still, I remember hearing of one civil servant, whose name is seen more often 'than that of any other civil servant, who was talking with his wife as to whether he could afford to keep all his children at school, and his name was on hundreds of millions of Treasury bills and notes. I will not say who it was. As a matter of fact, our civil servants are not adequately paid, at any rate, in some of the grades. Without discussing whether they should get
the rewards they would get in private enterprise, rewards I do not at all agree with, it is not good economy to the State that its servants should not have enough to maintain just that position in life which the State would wish them to maintain, and in that respect the civil servants have not really been properly treated. It is an evil that so many of our leading civil servants, when they retire, should retire to directorships or any other position in business. I think it is a very bad thing that a man who has been in a high position in the Civil Service should presently appear as a director of one of these companies which he may have been supervising.
I do not want to go any more into this matter, but I think we all approve the wording of the Motion, and I am quite prepared to support it. I cannot help feeling that we have got a treasure in our Civil Service, and we want to keep it. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it ought not to encroach on Parliament. But is it doing so? I suggest that the national business of the world could not be done without Miinisters relying constantly more and more on the Civil Service in doing their work.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I think of all the parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and who always speaks with great authority on matters of organisation of government, that which appealed to me most and that. with which he was in greatest agreement with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) were those parts in which he was most human, for I believe his is a problem which can only be approached with success from the human point of view. The right hon. Baronet has demonstrated without possibility of denial that there has grown up very recently certain definite tendencies in the Civil Service about which we are waiting with considerable anxiety to hear an expression of view from the Treasury Bench.
Let the House be quite clear what exactly the right hon. Baronet did say and what he did not say. He never for a moment suggested that we should abolish Treasury control in that direction in which Treasury control is not only
necessary but axiomatic, that is, on the financial side. But if Treasury control is not in dispute, surely there are two. different ways in which that control may. be exercised. It may be the control of the First Lord of the Treasury or the other political chiefs of the Treasury acting, of course, through their permanent advisers; or, on the other hand, it may be the control of the permanent advisers acting on behalf of the First Lord and the other political chiefs. There is a great difference, for the one is a defining and limiting control which says to this Department,"You shall do this," and to that Department, "This shall be your scope." It says to this office,"You may have so much money,"and to another office,"You must draw in your horns." That is quite a different thing from a, pressure steadily exercised by permanent and unifying forces making for uniformity within the whole of the Service. I do not for a moment want to embark on the large question of the advantages of unitary or decentralised control, but I think any Member of the House who has read any of those very fascinating histories of the various Government Departments which have been recently published must have risen with a very vivid sense of the diversity of the history of our various Government Departments—the two original Secretaries of State for the Northern and Southern Departments, their successors the many Secretaries of State, the Presidents of the various Committees of the Privy Council, and so forth.
While one admits that financial control is necessary, and that it may be necessary to have an interchange of officials between one department and another, there is a certain glory in these diversified activities of our various Government Departments, and a stimulus and pride which comes from it to those who work in them. It was, I think, one of the unfortunate results of the War that we had a large number of new departments that were endowed with the abominable foreign name of "Ministry," which was never known before in that sense in our Constitution. What advantage at all do you get from calling the Board of Agriculture the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries? I have never been impressed by that title. I once spoke to the Noble Lord who is now Viceroy of India, and suggested to him that, to counteract it, he might insist
that the stenographers and typists in his department should be dressed as shepherdesses with crooks. Although I do not remember that any definite promise was given me by the Noble Lord on the point, I remember him saying that he was interested by the suggestion. Let us seek diversity rather than the dullness which comes from such centralisation as is not immediately necessary from the purely financial point of view.
This tendency to centralisation is not making the life of the ordinary civil servant more pleasant, and it is not too pleasant a life at the best. He is much and ignorantly attacked, but he is not immune from that inspiration which comes from the esprit de corpsof belonging to a Department which has a tradition of its own, in which he hopes to reap the proper rewards of promotion, and which he believes is engaged upon a perfectly definite task in the Government of our country. I do not think;hat my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can deny the existence of the tendency to which the right hon. Baronet has referred, although, of course, he may explain it, and we are awaiting his explanation.
I have, in the past, been a very humble member of no fewer than three Government Departments, and have taken a very humble share in controversies with the Treasury; and it always struck me that, to individual civil servants, controversies with the Treasury provided that kind of discipline and medicinal advantages which the tourney had for the Knights of the Round Table in the days of yore. One did embark upon those controversies, in those days, assured that there was an element of hope that you might win your fight; and, if the controversy came to a deadlock, if you were up against a definite refusal of the Treasury, you always had your political chief or Secretary of State, who, if he thought the matter was important enough, might take it up with the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary, and, if it were a really serious matter, it might become a Cabinet question. I mention these personal matters because I think we want to look at this subject from the point of view of the individual civil servant, and I do hope that the explanation of this new tendency will not be such that that kind
of operation will be made a very unusual and occasional practice. If so, I think there will be a certain deadening effect upon the individual members of the various departments which are concerned. It is not true to say that this is a case in which he who pays the piper calls the tune, because the Treasury does not pay the piper; it is the public that pays the piper, and if the Treasury is the channel through which the piper is paid, that does not give the Treasury an unchallengable control over the executive operations of the Civil Service, any more than you might argue that the Stationery Office has an unchallengable control over the length of minutes because it supplies the paper upon which they are written.
You can go to the very greatest authority, none other than Lord Welby himself, who was, as we are now taught to say, the Head of the Civil Service, and who, in 1886, put it on record that the Treasury did not claim more than financial control, and did not wish to flow over beyond financial control into executive control. This headship of the Treasury is a very small point, and it is not a new title, but the trouble of what I may call this Byzantinism is that it grows. Why do we want the tinsel of Byzantium in the bespatted corridors of our simpler Whitehall? It is the Head of the Treasury now; what may it he in 50 years? The mind goes through a terrible and awful succession of developrnent—the Elder Brother of the Bank Rate, the Lion of the Consolidated Fund —these are titles that our descendants may find claimed by the Head of the Treasury, and what can stop him unless now we definitely take the line that we are going to insist upon more austere and more Roman virtues and practices?
The right hon. Baronet has performed a very great service, I consider, in putting himself to the trouble of bringing this matter forward, not only in the House to-night but on several occasions before and in the public Press. I think ho has met with a response, so far, that has about it. those larger and bolder elements which the world acclaims as genius, because what Columbus did with the egg, n. Newton with the apple, the Treasury has done with the loss of the file of 1867. I would ask hon. Members to re-read history, furnishing the historic characters with the enormous
engine of this new machine in controversy—the donation of Constantine, the forged Decretals—genuine, but lost —the use by Von Bethinann-Hollweg of the clumsy expedient of talking of the "Scrap of Paper" when he might have said that he had lost the Belgian Treaty. At such methods of controversy the victims of them are aghast in admiration. I would only ask the Financial Secretary the practical question whether the search for this paper is still continuing? I have no doubt that it is. The Financial Secretary himself seems to be feeling a strain to a certain extent, and I am sure there are anxious clerks down at the office at half-past eleven in the morning, and that passers-by see at five o'clock p.m., the lights of the Treasury still flaring while this relentless pursuit of the paper is still continuing. The right hon. Baronet and myself are not furies determined to press this pursuit. It may be a waste of public time. Let the paper be lost, but do let us have a declaration which will put it on record that the Government are abandoning a position which is unsound in law and apparently unsound in history, a pronouncement which will, I believe, bring relief to the House, to the Civil Service, and to the nation at large.

Sir J. SIMON: I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just made so amusing and so admirable a speech that the House is much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) for raising this question. It seems to me to be a very useful service that is rendered to the House of Commons and the country if from time to time some Member who has been fortunate on the ballot on a Private Members' evening should invite us to consider what is the tendency that is to he seen by a calm examination of our methods of administration viewed over a series of years. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has really been doing. It is so easy to let time pass without observing that really a tendency which can be detected by delicate instruments of observation is already causing very considerable movements to be recorded, so that we have got very much further on a particular path than probably any of us had quite realised. I think the right hon. Gentle-
man entirely made out his proposition that there has been within the last generation a very considerable change in the direction he indicated, and he raises a very interesting question as to whether on the whole the change is for the good of the nation, and what our view ought to be about it. May I remind the House of a similar, though a, much more familiar, kind of question—a question which is very much discussed by constitutional historians and the like. The position of the Prime Minister himself has undoubtedly been changing, and it is still changing. Jonathan Swift was the first English writer who ever used the words"Prime Minister."He referred to Harley, I think, in that language, though he usually called him first Minister, and the earlier expression, First Minister, was a mere translation from the French.

Sir H. CRAIK: The first Lord Clarendon expressly repudiated the name of Prime Minister.

Sir J. SIMON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in this matter his recollection and mine coincide. My next sentence was going to be that any lion. Member who is interested, as I am, in reading Clarendon's "Autobiography" will know that 50 years before Clarendon objected to the idea that he should receive a pension on the basis that he was what was called First Minister, and he said the expression was recently translated from the French. But the actual phrase"Prime Minister"cannot be traced further back than Jonathan Swift. The commonplace of the history school is to say that Sir Robert 'Walpole was the first Prime Minister in the modern sense. Really, with all respect to people who know much more about it, I think the modern Prime Minister dates much later than that. Sir Robert Walpole did not choose his own colleagues. It is true that in the end he became the head of a very powerful administration, but chiefly by the method of getting rid of colleagues he did not like. For the function of a modern Prime Minister, that he should choose his own colleagues and that his advice to the King should, in fact, secure the composition of what we now call the Cabinet, we cannot go beyond the time of Walpole. There is a. well-known
passage in which Pitt, after a long experience as a Cabinet Minister, indeed as Prime Minister, said it was essential to the post that he should be first in the confidence of the King and be able to secure that his advice was accepted. But then Pitt was a fortunate man. I think the present Prime Minister will regard him as such. He only had six colleagues. The Cabinet consisted of seven, and several of them were in the House of Lords. Therefore, it is obvious that even so important a post as that of the Prime Minister has been changing, and it is extremely difficult to register the changes, and, indeed, it is a very curious thing, not always remembered, that. to this day the position of Prime Minister is quite unknown to the law. There is no salary attached to the position of Prime Minister.
It is very often said, I think not quite accurately, that there is no Act of Parliament which contains the words"Prime Minister."There is, as a matter of fact, one, though I only know one, and it only occurs in the Schedule. It is in the Statute known as the Chequers Estate Act. There is a reference in the Schedule to the Prime Minister. He is described as "the person holding the office popularly known as Prime Minister." So it is plain that even the head of the Government, to say nothing of the head of the Civil Service, is an office which in fact is changing its content and meaning as time goes on, and I am confident that the change has been increasing in my own lifetime, for instance, during the Coalition Government and later, to a very considerable, though probably not measured, extent.. There are only two documents formally emanating from the British State which use the words Prime Minister in a formal sense. Lord Beaconsfield, when he signed the Treaty of Berlin, signed it "Beaconsfield, Prime Minister of England," and the only other instance that occurs to me is that when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was appointed to the office at the end of 1905, King Edward issued letters patent which gave the person holding the office of Prime Minister a place in precedence next after, I think, the Archbishop of York. Our constitution is really developing imperceptibly and slowly under the pressure of a number of forces many of which are quite. unidentified or unmeasured at the time, and it is
not in the least surprising that when you come to this particular aspect of constitutional development you should find a good deal of controversy.
There appears to be one perfectly obvious reason—it may seem rather trumpery but it is quite effective—why it cannot be historically and constitutionally correct to say that the Prime Minister, when he approves the suggestion of a colleague that so and so should be the head of some other department, proceeds upon the advice of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. The Prime Minister is not necessarily always the First Lord of the Treasury at all. Lord Salisbury was not. He was Foreign Minister. The great Lord Chatham was not. He was Lord Privy Seal. There is no constitutional or legal principle that the first Minister, the head of the Government-, should in fact be the First Lord of the Treasury at all. There is indeed very good strong tradition that he should be, and no doubt it is very convenient, although the actual reasons for it are not as great as they used to be. Fox declared that the man who held the headship of the Treasury was bound to be the most important Minister in the State because he held the patronage, and the real truth is that in the 17th and 18th centuries it was necessary that the principal Minister should be the head of the Treasury because it was out of the Treasury that the secret service money was paid and support of the Government on suitable occasions was secured. That is the real historical reason that planted the first Minister at the Treasury in ancient days. No one suggests that that is the reason to-day. The tradition therefore is a very deep seated one. It is obvious that it cannot be historically or constitutionally correct to say the Prime Minister in these matters relies upon the advice of the permanent head of the Treasury because it is really an accident that it is the Prime Minister who is himself in the commission of the Treasury rather than holding some other office in the State.
If I may draw upon my own recollection, limited as it is, I am fairly confident that even within my own experience it has not been the case that in any formal or constitutional sense the most eminent public servant who is at the head of the Treasury has been regarded as having some special prerogative to
supervise or approve appointments in other departments. I cannot help thinking the way it really works is this. In a modern Cabinet, where there is confidence between colleagues, the truth of the matter is that a Secretary of State—say the Secretary of State for the Home Department—does informally consult the Prime Minister about a great many matters upon which the mere law of the land does not require him to consult his chief. He takes a suitable occasion; he finds five minutes that his chief the Prime Minister is able to give him, and he says to him that such and such an important thing in his Department has to be decided and he is proposing to decide it in such and such a way. That is not only courtesy and the obvious duty which a subordinate owes to his chief, but. it is the natural way in which colleagues between whom there is confidence behave. It is the characteristically British way. The occasions when there has been trouble between one Minister and another on the subject of a particular appointment to one of the permanent offices are, I am sure, extremely rare; but I cannot help thinking that the real principle is, not that there is some constitutional duty or right in the permanent servant in one department to recommend or supervise appointments of this sort, but that the thing naturally develops in that sort of way, because every Minister would desire, before he decides a very important matter, to let his chief know what he is doing, and it would he a very extreme measure to suppose that he would go contrary to his wishes.
But let it be clearly understood that the Prime Minister does' not appoint his colleagues at all Every member of the Cabinet is equally appointed by the King. Though it be perfectly true that the Prime Minister recommends to His Majesty this or that gentleman for such and such an office, once he is so appointed I apprehend that the 'responsibility of a Cabinet Minister is primarily to his Sovereign and to this House, and not to the Prime Minister as such at all. Take an instance which has occurred within living memory, when there has been, as there has been once or twice, the death or the resignation of a Prime Minister without there being any change in the composition of the House of Commons—as happened, for example, when Mr.
Gladstone resigned and Lord Rosebery took his place, or when Mr. Balfour, as he then was, succeeded Lord Salisbury as Prime Minister. That did not involve constitutionally the resignation of every other Minister of the Crown, because each of them held his office from the King; and though, of course, of the constitution the Cabinet is such, and the confidence existing between its members is such, that there must be constant consultation, and every member submits himself to the advice of the Prime Minister on all propel occasions, it is historically and constitutionally quite wrong to suppose that. the Prime Minister has got that sort of control over his colleagues which some people are disposed to imagine.
Therefore, I am very much disposed to think that the right hon. Gentleman, if I may be permitted to say so, on the historical and constitutional sides is quite right. But that does not by any means exhaust the matter. The real difficulty is the difficulty on which;le right hon. Gentleman the Member for Scaham (Mr. Webb) put his finger. What are you going to do? You will not find that there would be approval of the idea that a subordinate Minister —I mean a Minister not holding an office of the first order—should be able to saddle the country for a generation with a particular civil servant of his choice without telling anyone else, and no Minister would ever do it. He would always consult his colleagues, the Prime Minister in particular, and I have no doubt that for that reason the practice has grown up that the Prime Minister is informed. It is not, of course, to be wondered at that the Prime Minister might desire to get the wise advice of somebody or other, and that the gentleman who holds the most responsible post at the head of the Treasury might be one of those whom he might like to consult is probable enough.
10.0 P.M.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that that does not proceed from any constitutional priority or position which has been awarded to some particular civil servant, however important, but that it is rather due to the fact that our Constitution works in this rather familiar, informal way, with the very great advantage that the Prime Minister really consults the person or persons whom he knows to be best able to give him wise
advice on the subject.. I am, therefore, for my part, very grateful to my right hon. Friend for having:raised this subject. I agree with what has been said by both the other speakers that the terms of the Resolution are quite unobjectionable. There is one aspect he has not touched upon—but it is covered by its words—which, I think, is most important to the topic he has raised. There is an undoubted tendency in the last 10 or 15 years to increase to a rapid and, I think, to a most dangerous extent what is in effect legislation by Departmental Order. I have seen it in my own Parliamentary lifetime growing quite clearly. If you want to put your finger on one moment which was a critical moment, it was the 7th of August, 1914. It was a Friday. The House of Commons, sitting three days after the outbreak of war, at one sitting passed through the Defence of the Realm Bill—First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading, at one sitting, and as you, Sir, may perhaps remember, they passed it without a single Member of the House of Commons ever having a copy of that Bill in his hand. It had not been printed, and it had to be read from that Box by the then Home Secretary from a typewritten copy. I remember at the time the Home Secretary said that something of the sort was needed, because we would need to have summary methods if any attempt were made to blow up bridges or tap telegraph wires.
That was the original conception. See to what it has grown! In the course of four or five years that Act and amending Acts were responsible for an immense pile of Regulations, so elaborate that I do not believe that even in the Departments themselves there was any certainty as to their terms, and a great many people, lawyers and laymen alike, lost their way in them. What is quite certain is that. that method, which could only be justified as a method in the pinch of war, is a method which the House of Commons has never sufficiently retrieved. We are more and more content to pass Acts of Parliament which are to be worked by rules and regulations and orders which, as we used to say, would be laid on the Table of the House of Commons. In the old days they were to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons for 40 days when
this House was sitting, and on any one of those days any Member could put down an Address asking that the particular Order should be delayed. That was exempted business that could be taken after eleven o'clock to any hour as long as a House could be kept. The House of Commons had real control over this subordinate law-making authority which is to be found in every Department of the Crown.
The 40 days has shrunk to 21, and sometimes even less. In the Electricity Bill I believe there is a provision that leaves no certain time at all. It does seem to me, in connection with this question of what part the Civil Service should play in the Government of the country, that it is wholly relevant to point out that we are moving along lines which really in effect impose on the community at large an immense body of law that has never been passed by the House of Commons at all. There is a story abort Napoleon Bonaparte that when he was First Consul a constitution was drawn up—a very short and vague constitution—which said some things were to be done by law, and some by rule or réglement. Napoleon asked one of his colleagues what was law and what was réglement.. His colleague said that law was the general rule made by those who governed, and that réglement. was only the special application of the law. As a passage from a book by a former Clerk of this House, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, says, it caused Bonaparte to smile a sardonic smile, and he asked for no more information.
We are really in danger of finding that rules are drawn up almost without the knowledge of the political chiefs of the Departments and are essentially the product of civil servants and have never been passed by this House at all. All those reasons make me think that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Craik) has done a great service by calling attention to this question. I associate myself with what he said as to our great pride in the Civil Service itself. I was touched by his eloquent claim that a great civil servant who spent many years in the service of the country might not attain to a position of great popularity or notoriety or even great financial advantage, but, none the less, had the great satisfaction of feeling that he had played a tremendous part in the just administration of the land. Those
famous lines could be well applied to the civil servant:
Fame is no plant that grows on mortal soil,
Nor in the glistering foil, set off to the world,
Nor in broad rumour lies.
That is the sort of fame the Civil Service has succeeded in enjoying to the great pride of us all. But I do not want to see this tendency to allow the Civil Service to overstep its proper boundary grow. It is essential to democratic government that Ministers should be responsible to the King and he able to answer here.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has made, as he always does, an extremely interesting speech, and I thought I was able to detect at certain points a shadowy connection with the subject brought forward by the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). The greater part of the speech was a historical disquisition on the growth of the position of Prime Minister and 'Cabinet Government. I think the connection between that and the Motion under discussion was not very close. The latter part of his speech was an arraignment, with which I am personally inclined to agree, against the prevalence at the present time of legislation by Departmental Order. That had nothing whatever to do with the Motion, because that class of legislation is not legislation by the Civil Service, But is only legislation in which they assist in an administrative capacity, and the responsibility is the same in every other respect as in legislation which Ministers bring forward in this House. The right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) asked me—and I think also the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler)—what the Government thought of this Motion. Well, it is very difficult for anyone to object to this Motion. In fact, my first inclination, on seeing it. was to think that the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities having as I learned from the newspapers, for the first time in his long career in this House been fortunate enough to win the Ballot and bring
forward a Motion, had taken a real plunge into the obvious. I agree, I think with every proposition in the Motion. I certainly agree that the Civil Service has merited the gratitude of the nation.
Its continued efficiency depends upon the control of that Service by His Majesty's Ministers responsible to this House"—
I agree with that—
upon the strict maintenance of its Constitutional position as a subordinate branch of administration"—
I agree with that—
and upon the continuance of those traditions by which it has been animated. in the past"—
I agree with that. Those are all the propositions in this Motion. There is one word, however, to which I take exception. All those propositions are preceded by a"but." That word "but" implies that all these traditions are violated at the present time, and, indeed, the speech of the right hon. Member obviously meant that a system had grown up under which they were being violated. The hon. Member for Cambridge University used a vaguer phrase, and said a tendency had grown up. A tendency is a very difficult thing to handle, and it is difficult to say exactly how it is to be tackled by a responsible Minister. One of the most famous civil servants spoke of "a tendency not ourselves which makes for righteousness. "It would he almost as difficult to tackle his tendency as to attack or comment on Matthew Arnold's definition of the Divinity. The real point the right hon. Member who brought forward the Motion seems to me to have missed, or rather not to have been quite clear about, is as to the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I understood him to assert that it is with the Prime Minister that responsibility for the administration of the Civil Service in all its branches rests, but that is not what he has said elsewhere.

Sir H. CRAIK: I said we all accepted unanimously and loyally the theory that the Prime Minister had a supreme control over the general conduct of the officers through his colleagues, who are His Majesty's Ministers, but not through any member of the Civil Service.

Mr. McNEILL: I did not misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. CRAIK: Yes, it is the very opposite of what I said.

Mr. McNEILL: I had in my mind the question which the right hon. Member put to the Prime Minister on the 18th February, in which he says:
and that he"—
that is, the civil servant—
will not be allowed to interfere with the internal affairs of any office for which the Minister in charge of that office is solely responsible to His Majesty in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1926; col. 2094, Vol. 191.]
I would ask my right hon. Friend how that proposition, as to the Departmental Minister being solely responsible to His Majesty in this House, squares with his view as to the supreme responsibility of the Prime Minister for all Departments?

Sir H. CRAIK: Surely that is a mere quibble about words. I was speaking perfectly clearly in giving a contrast between the Prime Minister's responsibility as against that of a permanent civil servant. To bring in this little point which is now raised by the right hon. Gentleman, in order to show that I do not think the Prime Minister is supreme, seeing that in the previous sentence I stated that I acknowledged he was supreme over all Ministers, is such a quibble that I refuse to be drawn into it. I think it is contemptible.

Mr. McNEILL: I am quite satisfied to have got out of the right hon. Gentleman what is his mind. I understand now that his doctrine is that really it is the Prime Minister who is responsible. In that I entirely agree. Now I will come to the question of his relations with the civil servant. My right hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for Sven Valley seemed to think that the responsibility of the Prime Minister in this matter was something new. The right hon. and learned Gentleman drew an inference from the fact that in modern times the Prime Minister had not always been First. Lord of the Treasury, exactly the opposite from the inference that I should be inclined to have drawn.
I can show very easily, if anyone doubts it, that the responsibility of the Prime Minister for the whole of the Civil Service goes back, at all events, to as early as Sir Robert Peel. The Civil Service itself,
in the modern sense, is rather a new thing. I think it was in 1843 or 1844 that for the first time there were Civil Service Estimates in the modern sense. It is not yet 100 years since the expense of what we now call the Civil Service was taken off the Civil List of the King. As early as 1850, when there was a Select Committee on official salaries, Sir Robert Peel then laid it down that the Prime Minister was responsible for all patronage, for the disposal of all patronage. He was not speaking of patronage in the wider sense, ecclesiastical patronage and so forth. The examination of the Committee was directed to what we now mean by Civil Service appointments, and Sir Robert Peel laid it down as a general proposition that the Prime Minister was responsible for the disposal of all patronage.
I cannot say definitely at what date the Prime Minister, in the exercise of that responsibility, began to look to the Treasury or to the Secretary to the Treasury as his adviser. I am astonished at my right hon. Friend's view with regard to the replies given to his questions on this subject of the Secretary to the Treasury. I did not quite follow what he meant when he said that there was a tendency on the part of the Civil Service now to encroach upon the legislative and judiciary functions.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Hear, hear!

Sir H. CRAIK: Hear, hear'

Mr. McNEILL: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is in the House, because my right hon. Friend made that a particular charge against the Coalition, be said that a damnosa hereditasof the Coalition was this terrible encroachment of the Civil Service upon the legislative and judicial functions.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is my right hon. Friend a defender of the Coalition?

Mr. McNEILL: No. I do not think I am any more inclined to defend the Coalition than is my right hon. Friend. I am not going to do so. I merely mention it for the information of the head of the Coalition, who is now in the House. And my right hon. Friend, with some indignation, said in his speech that this was the moment they put forward a new claim for one individual which has no shred of constitutional justification.

Sir H. CRAIK: I repeat it.

Mr. McNEILL: Then he went on to allude, with his customary dexterity and grace, to the unfortunate loss of papers in 1867, and without making any definite charge, indicated some scepticism as to whether these papers had ever been in existence.

Sir H. CRAIK: Not in the least; I said that perhaps they might have diminished in historical value.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not know how papers can be diminished in historical value except by supposing that they have never been in existence.

Sir H. CRAIK: Who told you that they ever existed?

Mr. McNEILL: Then the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler) supported that reference to the lost papers of 1867, apparently also thinking that they had little historical value.

Sir G. BUTLER: On the contrary, desired that the Treasury should be given no further trouble, and given instructions that a search should no longer he made into the matter.

Mr. McNEILL: I thank my hon. Friend for his anxiety, but I can assure him that there is no need for that search to go on. I am a little surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), not only to-night, but by questions addressed to the Prime Minister and in a letter to the "Times" should have committed himself to a very curious doctrine on this point. In his letter to the "Times," and in his speech here to-day, he talks of a new style, a habit of speaking of the "head of the Civil Service" which has crept into Parliamentary language, crept into the reply of the Prime Minister, a style which had never appeared in any official document before—a perfectly unknown development apparently dating from the time of the Coalition. I can only suppose that my right hon. Friend, who was a great ornament in the Civil Service, as he has told us to-night—

Sir H. CRAIK: No, I did not say that; and I ask my right hon. Friend to quote my words truthfully.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is asking you to withdraw.

Mr. McNEILL: Does he repudiate the idea that this new phase has crept in—

Sir H. CRAIK: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to quote my words correctly. I did not, say that I was a great ornament of the Civil Service.

Mr. McNEILL: I have never made any such accusation. There is no more modest person in this House than my right hon. Friend. That was my own remark, and I repeat it: he was an ornament to the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend, during the time that be was in the Civil Service, discharged his functions in a most important office, as we very well know, with very great distinction.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it might be well if the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were addressed to me.

Mr. McNEILL: Do you mean by that, Mr. Speaker, that I must physically turn to the Chair? The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was quoting Disraeli or Beaconsfield just now. I remember very well the advice that Disraeli gave to every Member of Parliament, that his words should be addressed to the Speaker while he looked at the Clock. I do not want to turn my back on my right hon. Friend while I am dealing with his Motion, hut at the same time, of course, Mr. Speaker, I wish to obey your instructions. I must apparently be that well-known character in the Pilgrim's Progress, Mr. Facing-both-Ways. My right hon. Friend, all the time that he was in the Civil Service, and all the time that he has been in this House since, has been under the impression that the Secretary to the Treasury was not the head of the Civil Service. As we know, the lost papers of 1867 have no value in his eyes. I cannot, of course, recover those papers, but I can give what, I think, is really good evidence as to the situation at that time. By 1872 it had become the definitely established practice, which was not questioned, that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury was the head of the Civil Service.

Sir H. CRAIK: No, never !

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend on this particular point is in that state of mind that no evidence will convince him. I will, at any rate, quote what I have in my hand, the volume
of "Hansard" for April, 1872. On the 5th of April in that year there was a Debate in this House on official salaries. I will give a short extract from the end of that Debate. A Mr. Rylands, who was speaking, said:
The difference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would avoid already existed, because the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, whose position was the same as that of an Under-Secretary of State, had £2,000 for five years, and then a maximum of £2,500; and yet the other Under-Secretaries had not applied for any increase of salary.
The then Chancellor of the Exchequer said
The Secretary of the Treasury was not an Under-Secretary of State. He was at the head of the Civil Service.
At that date it was so stated at this Box by a Minister of the Crown. No one challenged it, and no one suggested that the phrase had suddenly crept in—that it was a new-fangled notion, that there was anything unconstitutional in it; and I believe that from that date to this it has never been challenged.

Sir H. CRAIK: The question then was whether the Secretary to the Treasury should have a higher salary than other officials, and whether he was to be looked upon as the doyen of the Service. But in 1886 Lord Welby, then Sir Richard Welby, in his evidence before a Commission distinctly repudiated any such power in the secretary to the Treasury as is now suggested, or any power over other offices except financially.

Mr. McNEILL: Then it is a question as to whether the House considers the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—unchallenged at the time—or that of Lord Welby as having the higher authority. [Interruption.] I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will allow me to speak at all. I did not interrupt him, although I disagreed with him strongly, but if I may be allowed to proceed, I will point out that it is rather curious that he quotes an authority from 1886, and I find Todd's "Parliamentary Government in England," published in 1889, referring to the Treasury, uses these words:
The Permanent Secretary is the official head of the Department and of the whole Civil Service.
I take it, that is really the position occupied by the permanent head of the Treasury, and the only question arising on
this Motion is whether or not the relations between the Secretary to the Treasury as head of the Civil Service, and the Prime Minister, are in any way objectionable.. I think the answer on that point, given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, seems to be perfectly conclusive. The Prime Minister has to exercise his responsibility which, as I have shown, is fully established. He is responsible for all patronage as also for all appointments throughout the Civil Service; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) explained, the Civil Service has enormously grown during the last half century. There are new Departments, the old Departments have grown, the work is more complex, the appointments are more specialised, and the difficulty of securing the right man for the right place must be much greater. The Prime Minister, being responsible, must have some definitely recognised adviser in the matter. My right hon. Friend says the last person by whom the Prime Minister should be advised is a great civil servant.

Sir H. CRAIK: Any civil servant.

Mr. McNEILL: Surely my right hon. Friend must see that that is an utterly untenable position. Every Departmental Minister is advised by his own permanent officials. Does my right hon. Friend imagine that the Foreign Secretary never goes to any of the officials of the Foreign Office for advice upon anything? Does he imagine for a moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer carries on his office without ever asking the advice of any of the experts of the Treasury? Surely it stands to reason that every Departmental Minister seeks advice day by day—which he may take or not take as he chooses—from the experts of his Department. They have experience of the working of the office, very often much greater than that of the political chief who may be there to-day and gone to-morrow. That advice is given equally freely, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Webb) said, and equally loyally to whatever political party the political chief belongs; and just in the same way, in exercising the larger control which falls upon the Prime Minister for the service as a whole, and for all Departments, he must have at his elbow some one person who is his recognised official adviser in that regard.
It is quite true he is not confined to that one adviser. If a great appointment is to be made in some Department, no doubt the Prime Minister and the Departmental Minister consult, and they may ask advice from whom they choose. But at all events, as the permanent head of the Treasury has been for more than half a century recognised as the head of the Civil Service, and as the Treasury has been gradually growing more into the position of the pivotal Department in a great Service, exercising a certain limited but still definite control over them all, it is the most natural thing in the world, at whatever date it may have originated, that the adviser of the Prime Minister in regard to those appointments throughout the Civil Service should be the permanent head of the Treasury.
Supposing one of the higher appointments at the Admiralty, the Home Office, or the Foreign Office fall vacant. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend still thinks that, as was no doubt true at an earlier time—when any Department was not only a Department but a watertight compartment, under a Departmental chief—all promotions should be confined to those who had been for years in that particular Department. If the Service is to be one Service throughout, arid a vacancy at the Home Office may perhaps be filled by some conspicuously able civil servant from the Board of Trade or some other Department, there must he some official who, more than others, is in touch with and has knowledge of all the various Departments, who are those of conspicuous ability, who have a reputation and a prestige, and whose names naturally would be brought forward for preferment. He has all that knowledge, and he places it, when it is wanted, at the disposal of the Prime Minister and of the head of the Department where the vacancy occurs.
I do not know, but I presume that what happens then is that the recommendation is made to the Prime Minister by the head of the Department where the vacancy occurs, the advice of the Secretary to the Treasury is asked for, it. may be either followed or not followed, as the case may be, and then the appointment is made, presumably through the channel, at all events, of the departmental head of that particular Department. That
would be the machinery by which these larger appointments are made, and it appears to me to be entirely constitutional. I do not believe it is newfangled, and even if it were comparatively new-fangled, it appears to me that it is absolutely inevitable and essential, when you have regard to the great size, importance, and complexity of the modern Government administration in all its branches.
Before I sit down, I must endorse most thoroughly what my right hon. Friend said at the outset of his speech with regard to the quality of the Civil Service, both in the past and, I maintain, in the present. I agree, and I was very glad to hear the very liberal praise of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I believe that every political party in turn, as they become familiar with the workings of the great Government Departments, if a Debate of this sort occurs in the House, one after the other, as time goes by, will get up and pay the same tribute to the great civil servants whose loyalty, zeal, knowledge, and industry are absolutely essential to the proper carrying on of the Government of the day, and all equally at the disposal of any political chief, perfectly regardless of what his political opinions may be.

Mr. THURTLE: Even in the Foreign Office?

Mr. McNEILL: I think perhaps conspicuously in the Foreign Office, and, if I recollect rightly, no one has said so with more emphasis than the right hon. Gentleman who leads the party opposite and who was at the Foreign Office. I have only one word more to say, and it is this: I was particularly glad that my right hon. Friend was careful to say that in nothing that he said did he make any reflection at all upon the present occupant of the post of Secretary to the Treasury. I believe that that was a compliment which was deserved, to make it clear that no reflection was cast upon him. I have not long been privileged to know much of the present occupant of the office, but I do claim to know something of him now, and I must say I cannot imagine any individual of whom it would be less appropriate to say, as my right hon. Friend said, I think, in his letter to the "Times," that he had arrogated to himself some functions. I cannot imagine
anyone less likely to arrogate to himself anything to which he was not entitled than the present Secretary of the Treasury, and I am very glad to join with my right hon. Friend in paying a very high tribute to his loyalty and ability.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: We have listened to an interesting Debate, full of interesting reminiscences and allusions, which have been extremely instructive to some of us who have not been very long within these walls. I now suggest that we should come back to the question, what are we going to do with this Motion? On that point, the result of the Debate, I submit, is perfectly clear. It is that this Motion should be passed unanimously by the whole House. We have had the great advantage of hearing the opinion of the Treasury Bench with regard to it. It has been said that on reading the Motion, the Motion is obviously right, and yet that seems to be regarded as some reason why it should not be passed. A wise man said that it is the obvious of which we need often to be reminded. It is the obvious to which we should have our attention called from time to time, and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion for having called our attention to it. We have the great advantage that commendation of this Motion has come from all parts of the House, and we are not disturbed by the feeling that we should act in any way in opposition to the views of the Government by voting for it.
In order to carry a Motion of this kind, two things would appear to me to be necessary. The first is that it should point out some real evils, and, in the second place, it should point out some possible remedies for those evils. The Motion before us appears to be carefully directed to those objects. It points out that it is necessary, as the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has said, that we should take stock from time to time of whither we are tending. It is of the utmost importance that we should see how the Constitution is working. Changes which come here will not be sudden, revolutionary changes, but the changes which take place constitutionally, and it is very desirable that we should point out when dangerous tendencies arise. If there are three
things which are important in our Constitution, they are these: First, the purity and excellence of our Civil Service; the second, the purity and independence of our Judicial Bench; and the third, the supreme power of the Houses of Parliament in deciding on any question. Every one of these is a precious inheritance, of which we ought to take the utmost care, especially when there are risks that You may have a permanent Civil Service, by its very honourable character and by its efficiency, extending its jurisdiction.
Stress has been laid upon the importance of the Minister who makes an appointment being absolutely independent and deciding the appointment himself. Of course, any Minister who makes an appointment of that kind does not choose a man in an arbitrary manner. He is responsible to this House, and in addition to that one of the best things he can do is to look round in his own Department to see what men there are who have earned their laurels by competence. There have been cases in which men have been appointed who have clone excellent work previously in their own Departments, and there are traditions in each Government Department which I am sure it would be wise to observe.
We wish to make it perfectly clear that as regards the position of the Civil Service as a whole, it must be a subordinate position. We do not want Ministers coming to this House and saying that certain things are necessary, and then practically giving away a large amount of the control of this House over such matters. We ought to be very jealous of the complete legislative power of this House. I was rather shocked not long ago to hear a new Member, when referring to the case of useful legislation being brought forward by a Prime Minister, say that the reason for not proceeding with it was that it was brought in by a private Member. Private Members should be jealous of their rights. I take it that the result of the passing of this Resolution will be that the civil servant will be placed in a subordinate position to the Minister. This is all the more important because Acts of Attainder are no longer possible and Tower Hill has no terrors for those who sit here. Whatever is brought forward here by the Government the Minister has to stand the shock of it, and there is no power
behind the Throne to which he can appeal. He must face all the arguments brought against the policy he brings forward. Let us be jealous of our legislative powers, and let the Ministers be jealous of their responsibility, in order that the Civil Service may remain, as in the past, an honoured service. Therefore, let us pass this Resolution and pass it at once.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to add two or three words upon this Resolution. I do not quite agree with the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down that this Resolution is simply laying down a series of general propositions with regard to the position which the Civil Service ought to maintain towards this House and towards legislation. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the introduction in the Resolution of the word "but," if it means anything, means that the Civil Service at the present moment is not maintaining its strict constitutional position as a. subordinate branch of the Administration, and that it is not continuing those traditions by which it has been animated in the past. I do not see the point of introducing that word unless it involves a censure upon the Civil Service. That is a very serious thing for the House to pass without some more evidence than we have heard in the course of this Debate as to the action which has been taken by any individual in that Service. I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), but I have taken the trouble to inquire what he said. I have heard the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and, speaking from such experience as I have, it seems to me that he stated with great fairness the practice of the Civil Service, at any rate, during the last 20 years.
The Prime Minister of the day has to rely on some adviser in the functions which he has to discharge, apart from all other Ministers. I was Chancellor of the Exchequer for seven or eight years, and the Prime Minister of the day had to make a good many appointments in other Departments. With those appointments I was not in the least concerned as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Prime Minister of the day had to send
for the head of the Treasury to consult him upon matters with which I was not concerned in the least. The head of the Treasury was his principal adviser, and to talk of this as if it were something which arose in 1919 is not in the least true. From all I can gather it has been the practice in modern times. I do not believe Lord Oxford initiated the practice. Who else could advise the Prime Minister of the day? He could not act on his own initiative. It is for him to decide whether he will sanction the appointment of the permanent heads of other Departments. The permanent heads of other Departments can only be appointed—I am not sure whether it is an appointment direct by the Prime Minister—with the sanction of the Prime Minister. Promotion inside a Department is generally left to the head of that Department, but when you come to the permanent head of a Department then either it is the appointment of a Prime Minister or at any rate the Prime Minister is consulted and the responsibility is his. How is he to know? He must consult someone who knows the Civil Service thoroughly. Who is he to consult? By the practice during all the time I was in office—and I was in office 17 years holding one office or another—the head of the Treasury was the only adviser to whom the Prime Minister of the day could resort for advice on that subject. I have never heard that there has been any new practice. The right hon. Gentleman referred to something in 1919, when the present Foreign Secretary was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he initiated no new practice—none. I cannot imagine what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind. It is an old practice. I knew perfectly well the Prime Minister of the day was sending for the permanent head of the Treasury who was my chief adviser in all matters relating to the Treasury, and I knew that on this question it was something which was outside my purview altogether, and that he was the adviser of the Prime Minister, and I never interfered in 'it. What departure has there been from that practice at the present moment? I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said in his speech that these matters are becoming more and more important, and that, therefore, the responsibility of the head of the Treasury
is becoming greater in his anxious task; but I am perfectly certain that the present head of the Treasury is the last man in the world to arrogate to himself any functions which are not his strict duty and responsibility. I cannot imagine what possible complaint there can be in regard to the references which were made to other organisations. That has nothing to do whatever with this matter, but I do think it is a very serious matter for the House of Commons to pass a Resolution which, by implication, casts a reflection upon the Civil Service. [interruption.] I ask anyone to read this Resolution fairly and say that it does not mean, especially in view of the speeches which have been delivered to explain it, that there is a suggestion here that the Civil Service have gone outside their functions, have not maintained their high traditions, and have not behaved as if they were subordinate to the administration. If they have increased their control, that is not their fault; it is because Parliament has imposed new duties and new powers upon them. If it is the fault of anyone, it is the fault of the Legislature. There is no doubt at all that during recent years enormous duties have been cast upon the Civil Service which, in the old days, the Civil Service were not expected to discharge, but which Parliament has invited them to discharge. That is not an act of insubordination on their part. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) referred to the question of Regulations. I remember that a very witty member of the Board of Customs once gave the order in which he revered the various authorities above him. He said:
First and foremost comes the Order of the Board; secondly comes a Minute of the Treasury; thirdly conies an Act of Parliament; and fourthly, and lastly, the word of God.
I have no doubt at all that that may be the attitude, but it is a very old attitude of the Civil Service, and that is an old saying which goes back far beyond the days of the Coalition. I never, however, heard a suggestion that the Civil Service had taken upon themselves any functions which had not been imposed upon them by Act of Parliament. The suggestion that they are taking upon themselves the authority of government is not true. Everybody who
has held office under the Crown knows perfectly well that there is no more loyal body of men. Without distinction of party, they have served faithfully the Minister of the day.

Mr. WALLHEAD: We have the Red Letter in mind.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not going into any questions of that kind. There may be questions of that kind, but, in the main, I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, who have had some experience, will say that, although they came into office as a party for the first time, the men who served under them served them as faithfully as they served either a Liberal or a Conservative Government. They took their directions from the Minister of the day; there was no attempt at insubordination; and I think it would be very unfair to condemn the whole Civil Service, by implication, upon grounds which are quite inadequate. As far as I am concerned, if this goes to a vote, I shall certainly feel it nay duty, as an old Minister of the Crown, who found the Civil Service perfectly loyal during the whole of the time he had to depend upon them, to vote against the Resolution.

Sir H. CRAIKrose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is now ready to come to a decision.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Civil Service has merited the gratitude of the nation, but that its continued efficiency depends upon the control of that Service by His Majesty's Ministers responsible to this House, upon the strict maintenance of its Constitutional position as a subordinate branch of administration, and upon the continuance of those traditions by which it has been animated in the past.